1 


'■>V 


•/JUS 


*» 


**>*/• 


JSJ 


V  V>'V 


*'  -  :Xc; 


?*' 


" :  r;  ■  - 

2?,  UtvT**.-' 


&  v->‘4? 


Mg 


.  jp’-l:  if'  >;2  *; 

: . ;f;:r . S&  ■■'&«*£ ..- 


SEESg$ 


>•  |3SS 


/-•  ■.;.,¥ 


;h-, 


«r-.j 


V  -*  ’**><-  -■><& 


. /.  ,:f.^r-a rT- 


'■»-%■  ■ 


m  ■-. 


Hi  -S'*. 


'-'VS* ' 


Stf*. 


Srigr 


^v-.  :r  .-;>— 


r'S.i,- 


Kf.; 


£>**»- 


. 

. 

v‘ 


js .  -fc  ap. 


r* 

BL  263  . L2 5  1923 
Lane,  Henry  Higgins, 
1965. 

Evolution  and  Christ 
faith  _ , 


1878- 

ian 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/evolutionchristiOOIane_O 


EVOLUTION  AND 
CHRISTIAN  FAITH 


EVOLUTION  AND 
CHRISTIAN  FAITH 


BY  H.  H.  LANE 

PROFESSOR  OF  ZOOLOGY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  KANSAS 


PRINCETON 

PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON:  HUMPHREY  MILFORD 
OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1923 


Copyrighted  and  Published  1923  by  the  Princeton  University  Press 
Printed  at  the  Princeton  University  Press  :  Princeton  :  U.  S.  A. 


To  My  W  IFE 

Whose  Interest  and  U nder standing 
Have  been  an  Unfailing  Stimulus 
in  the  Writing  of  this  Booh 


PREFACE 


This  book  has  grown  out  of  a  course  of  lectures 
prepared  and  delivered  in  response  to  the  follow¬ 
ing  petition: 

We,  the  undersigned  students  of  this  University  * 
respectfully  request  that  you  give  us  a  course  of 
lectures  setting  forth 

i. 

What  is  the  theory  of  evolution  and  what  are  the 
important  facts  on  which  it  is  based ;  and 

ii. 

What  effect  the  acceptance  of  that  theory  has  upon 
one's  views  of  the  Biblical  account  of  creation  and 
of  the  Christian  Religion. 

The  events  of  the  past  year  or  two  show  clearly 
that  not  only  the  students  in  our  colleges  and  uni¬ 
versities,  but  many  people  outside  of  those  institu¬ 
tions  as  well,  are  seeking  the  answer  to  these  ques¬ 
tions.  For  the  most  part,  those  who  have  at¬ 
tempted  to  throw  light  on  the  problem  have  been 
those  who  are  either  too  ignorant  scientifically  to 
speak  with  authority,  in  which  case  the  most  ab¬ 
surd  and  sensational  fulminations  have  been  pub- 

*  Phillips  University. 


[  vn  ] 


Preface 


lished,  which  only  befuddle  or  disgust  the  mind  of 
the  serious,  thoughtful  seeker  for  the  truth,  or  else, 
the  authors,  while  scientifically  competent,  have 
not  been,  as  a  rule,  exactly  aware  of  the  difficulties 
confronting  the  student  mind. 

Owing  to  more  than  forty  years’  familiarity 
with  the  thought  and  belief  of  Christians  in  gen¬ 
eral,  partly  due  to  his  boyhood  and  youth  spent  as 
the  son  of  a  devout  minister  of  the  Gospel,  partly 
because  of  over  thirty  years’  membership  in  an 
evangelical  body  of  Protestantism,  during  which 
time  he  has  served  in  practically  every  church 
office  open  to  a  layman,  partly  on  account  of 
his  experience  as  a  student  in  five  universities 
(DePauw,  Indiana,  Cornell,  Chicago,  and  Prince¬ 
ton)  ,  and  partly  through  a  teaching  experience  as 
professor  of  zoology  in  four  colleges  and  univer¬ 
sities,  two  of  them  under  church  control  and  two 
important  state  universities,  the  author  feels  that 
he  has  had  peculiar  opportunities  to  approach  the 
questions  with  a  clear  understanding  of  both  sides 
of  the  controversy. 

Xo  effort  has  been  made  to  write  anything 
strictly  new  or  distinctly  original ;  the  problem  in 
hand  is  so  definite  and  presses  so  hard  for  solution 
that  the  author  has  drawn  freely  upon  all  avail¬ 
able  sources.  He  therefore  acknowledges  his  great 
indebtedness  to  the  work  of  many  writers,  not  all 
of  whom  can  be  fisted  here.  But  especial  ac¬ 
knowledgments  are  due  to  Professor  E.  G.  Conk¬ 
lin,  of  Princeton  University,  for  the  general  plan 
and  many  of  the  facts  given  in  the  chapter  on  the 

[  viii  ] 


Preface 


Embryology  of  the  Mind;  to  Professor  H.  V. 
Neal,  of  Tufts  College,  for  the  same  in  regard  to 
the  chapter  on  the  Problem  of  Ultimate  Causa¬ 
tion;  while  to  the  works  of  the  late  Professor 
Joseph  LeConte,  the  author  is  under  obligations 
for  numerous  ideas  embodied  here  and  there 
throughout  the  whole  book.  A  number  of  lesser 
debts  are  acknowledged  by  quotation  marks  and 
references  throughout  the  text. 

This  book  has  been  written  to  meet  the  need  of 
the  man  or  woman  who  is  troubled  by  the  idea,  un¬ 
fortunately  so  prevalent,  that  acceptance  of  the 
results  of  modern  science  involves  the  repudiation 
of  long-cherished  religious  beliefs.  It  is  intended 
to  show  more  especially  that  the  biological  doc¬ 
trine  of  evolution  does  not  preclude  faith  in  the 
Divine  Power  that  operates  in  and  through  the 
universe,  but  rather  inforces  such  a  faith.  It  is  an 
attempt  at  an  interpretation  of  reality  compatible 
with  idealistic  realism  and  in  opposition  to  the 
philosophic  materialism  so  frequently  adopted  by 
those  who  wish  to  be  “abreast  of  the  times.”  The 
author  sincerely  hopes  that  it  may  remove  some 
of  the  obstacles  which  have  kept  many  minds  from 
a  belief  in  the  possibility  of  that  deepest  need  of 
the  human  soul — a  religious  faith. 

H.  H.  Lane 

July  22  1922 


[IX] 


CONTENTS 

PREFACE  Page  vn 

I.  INTRODUCTION  1 

II.  THE  SO-CALLED  WARFARE  OF  SCIENCE 

AND  THEOLOGY  9 

PART  I:  SCIENCE 

III.  THE  FACT  OF  EVOLUTION  23 

IV.  HAS  MAN  EVOLVED  ?  53 

V.  THE  GEOLOGICAL  HISTORY  OF  MAN  67 

VI.  THE  ROLE  OF  THE  HAND  IN  THE 

EVOLUTION  OF  MAN  81 

VII.  SOME  DISADVANTAGES  OF  THE 

UPRIGHT  POSITION  91 

VIII.  THE  EMBRYOLOGY  OF  THE  MIND  99 

PART  II:  PHILOSOPHY 

IX.  THE  PROBLEM  OF  ULTIMATE  CAUSATION  125 

X.  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  INDIVIDUAL 

VERSUS  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SPECIES  145 

XI.  WHAT  AND  WHERE  IS  GOD  ?  155 

XII.  EVOLUTION  AND  GENESIS  173 

XIII.  EVOLUTION  AND  CHRISTIANITY  187 

XIV.  THE  SWING  OF  THE  PENDULUM  201 

SUGGESTED  READINGS  213 

[XI] 


CHAPTER  I 


INTRODUCTION 


Upon  the  publication  of  Darwin’s  “Origin  of 
Species,”  and  more  particularly  of  his  later  work 
on  “The  Descent  of  Man,”  there  arose  a  fierce 
controversy  between  the  more  militant  scientists 

w 

and  the  theologians,  which  lasted  for  many  years. 
By  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century  this 
controversy  had  subsided  to  such  an  extent  that 
it  no  longer  attracted  general  interest  or  atten¬ 
tion.  The  result  was  construed  by  scientists  gener¬ 
ally  as  favorable  to  their  point  of  view  since  many 
theologians  had  either  openly  accepted  the  scien¬ 
tific  position  or  else  made  little  noise  with  their 
opposition.  Of  recent  years  it  has  been  frequent  - 
lv  asserted  in  scientific  circles  that  the  battle  was 
ended  and  that  probably  never  again  would  it  be 
revived.  In  the  majority  of  the  more  important 
institutions  of  learning  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
is  tacitlv  assumed  in  nearly  all  departments  and 
frequently  little  or  no  attempt  is  made  to  evaluate 
the  evidence  on  which  the  doctrine  rests  nor  to  ex¬ 
amine  its  philosophical  implications. 

More  recently,  however,  the  fire  of  opposition 
to  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  or,  more  particularly, 
to  certain  theories  advanced  in  connection  with  it, 

[i] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

has  flamed  up  anew.  Especially  is  this  true  in  cer¬ 
tain  colleges  conducted  under  the  auspices  of 
various  religious  denominations,  and  likewise  on 
the  part  of  several  well-known  public  speakers, 
ministerial  and  otherwise. 

This  recrudescence  of  the  old  conflict  is  due  to 
several  causes,  the  first  of  which  is  perhaps  a  gen¬ 
eral  misunderstanding  of  the  aim  and  scope  of 
science.  Too  frequently  theories  and  conclusions 
which  belong  rather  in  the  field  of  speculative 
philosophy  have  been  mistaken  by  the  unthinking 
or  uninformed  for  theories  or  conclusions  of 
science.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  in  some  cases 
the  scientists  themselves  are  largely  to  blame  for 
this  situation  since  they  have  not  always  been 
careful  to  make  clear  distinctions  between  their 
scientific  facts  and  their  philosophical  deductions. 
It  cannot  be  too  emphatically  stated  that  science 
is  merely  the  orderly  arrangement  of  facts  or 
phenomena  arrived  at  by  observation  or  experi¬ 
ment  in  the  realms  of  matter  and  energy.  The 
scientist,  as  such,  is  limited  to  the  consideration  of 
those  phenomena  of  the  universe  which  are  meas¬ 
urable  or  ponderable,  and  to  the  sequential  rela¬ 
tions  discovered  to  exist  among  them.  He  is,  there¬ 
fore,  limited  in  his  scope  to  the  discovery  of  prooci - 
mate  causes.  He  can  never,  as  a  scientist,  deal 
with  ultimate  causation;  that  subject  belongs  to 
philosophy  and  not  to  science.  Yet,  because  some 
eminent  scientists  have  turned  philosophers  and, 
more  especially,  because  they  have  then  sometimes 
advocated  a  materialistic  philosophy,  the  non- 

[2] 


Introduction 


scientific  public  has  generally  concluded  that  all 
science  is  materialistic  in  tendency.  The  real  truth 
is  far  from  this  common  belief,  but  because  there 
is  more  sensation  in  a  heterodox  doctrine,  the  pub¬ 
lic  has  become  duly  acquainted  with  the  works  of 
such  men  as  Haeckel,  while  the  more  numerous 
but  less  sensational,  because  more  orthodox, 
authors  have  been  largely  passed  by  with  little 
notice  or  acclaim. 

Another  reason  for  the  present  situation  is  to 
be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  philosophizing  scien¬ 
tist  with  materialistic  tendencies  has  been  more 
prone  to  publish  his  views  than  have  been  those 
opposed  in  position.  Especially  has  it  been  true 
that  in  the  fields  of  psychology,  sociology,  and 
pedagogy,  many  brilliant,  but  philosophically  im¬ 
mature  authors  have  gone  to  wholly  unwarranted 
extremes  in  their  advocacy  of  the  materialistic 
position  in  philosophy ;  have  apparently  taken  de¬ 
light  in  deriding  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  re¬ 
ligion;  and  have  striven  to  impress  the  idea  that 
all  science  supports  their  doctrines  or  theories,  no 
matter  how  extreme  they  may  be.  The  effects  of 
such  teaching  upon  the  impressionable  minds  of 
high  school  or  immature  college  students  could 
not  but  have  most  unfortunate  results.  It  is  not 
surprising  therefore  that  a  respectable  propor¬ 
tion  of  the  general  public,  especially  of  those 
who  are  alert  to  the  maladies  and  dangers  now 
threatening  the  body  politic,  should  have  become 
alarmed  at  the  prospect;  that  in  their  ignorance 
of  the  true  situation  they  should  have  so  fre- 

[3] 


Evolution  and  Chkistian  Faith 

quently  mistaken  the  real  source  of  the  danger,  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at.  With  the  end  which  the 
sincere  opponents  of  these  doctrines  are  striving 
to  attain,  most  thoughtful  scientists  are  in  com¬ 
plete  sympathy.  They  differ  only  in  their  views  as 
to  the  correct  means  to  be  used  in  combating  the 
unwarranted  doctrines  of  the  extremists  on  the 
other  side. 

Directly  or  indirectly,  the  extreme  views  of  the 
materialistic  philosophers  have  a  most  deleterious 
effect,  first  upon  the  attitude  of  mind  of  the  young 
or  thoughtless  student  toward  law,  morality  and 
religion,  and  in  the  second  place,  when  widely 
held,  they  may  even  bring  about  international 
discord,  and  national  immorality  as  was  recently 
clearly  indicated  by  the  behavior  of  a  great  but 
materially  minded  country  of  Europe.  Scientists 
themselves,  it  may  be  stated  without  the  possibili¬ 
ty  of  successful  contradiction,  have  been  among 
the  first  and  foremost  to  issue  warnings  against 
the  unwarranted  conclusions  of  those  who  attempt 
to  base  a  philosophy  of  life,  both  national  and  in¬ 
dividual,  upon  a  partial  or  improper  view  of 
scientific  facts  and  doctrines.  Perhaps  because  of 
the  scientist’s  usual  propensity  to  consider  things 
quietly  and  judiciously,  without  a  violent  display 
of  emotion,  the  warnings  have  fallen  on  unheed¬ 
ing  ears.  Few  scientists  have  the  temperament 
that  seems  to  characterize  a  public  reformer;  but 
there  is  the  possibility  that  on  this  very  account 
the  doctrines  which  they  advocate,  in  the  long  run 
shall  prevail. 


[4] 


Introduction 


That  the  majority  of  mature  scientists  are  ma¬ 
terialists  is  a  wide-spread  belief  which  is  not  sub¬ 
stantiated  upon  proper  examination  of  the  facts. 
Statements  based  upon  the  results  of  question¬ 
naires  or  other  means  of  determining  the  philo¬ 
sophical  or  religious  beliefs  of  scientists  are  usual¬ 
ly  misleading,  partly  because  of  their  incomplete¬ 
ness  and  partly  because  of  bias  in  the  interpreta¬ 
tions.  A  far  better  idea  of  the  scientific  attitude  may 
be  obtained  from  the  published  works  of  recognized 
leaders  in  science.  Space  forbids  more  than  one  il¬ 
lustrative  quotation,  taken  from  J.  Arthur  Thom¬ 
son’s  “Introduction  to  Science”: 

“Nor  can  it  be  said  that  Science  engenders  an 
irreverent  spirit ;  the  biographies  of  all  the  great¬ 
est  scientific  investigators  show  the  reverse.  The 
irreverent  and  the  unwondering  are  to  be  found 
among  those  who  know  least,  not  among  those  who 
know  most.  It  is  true  that  minor  mysteries  dis¬ 
appear,  or,  at  least,  that  they  cease  to  be  mysteri¬ 
ous  in  a  superficial  way,  but  it  has  been  the  ex¬ 
perience  of  many  a  student  of  Science  that  when 
the  half -gods  go  the  gods  arrive”  (p.  213) . 

Again  the  same  author  says : 

“In  face  of  the  often  terrible  failure  of  human 
endeavor,  the  element  of  tragedy  in  things  as 
they  are,  and  the  chill  that  follows  the  vision  of 
our  fair  earth  and  all  that  it  contains  becoming 
cold  and  cindery  as  the  moon,  many  a  one  of  great 
repute  in  the  world  of  Science — we  think  of  men 
like  Clerk  Maxwell  or  Kelvin — seeks  to  steady 
himself  in  the  thought  of  some  Abiding  Reality, 

[5] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

saying  as  of  yore,  ‘I  will  lift  up  mine  eyes  unto 
the  hills’  ”  (p.  200) . 

In  the  discussion  that  occupies  the  succeeding 
pages  the  author  has  attempted  to  maintain  the 
scientific  attitude  of  mind,  which  consists  in  an 
honest  endeavor  to  receive  the  truth  whatever  its 
nature  and  source,  in  a  determination  to  secure 
all  facts  essential  to  the  question  at  issue,  with 
the  intention  of  testing  every  hypothesis  by  appli¬ 
cation  to  further  facts  and  relations,  discarding 
each  hypothesis  whenever  it  becomes  untenable 
by  reason  of  contradictory  phenomena,  and  of 
arriving  at  final  judgments  only  when  there  seems 
no  escape  from  them;  in  a  spirit  of  tolerance  for 
the  opinions  of  others  whether  in  accord  or  in  dis¬ 
agreement  with  his  own,  a  spirit  which  seeks  to  ac¬ 
count  for  them  rather  than  to  ridicule  or  denounce 
them;  in  short,  with  a  freedom  from  acrimony, 
blind  partisanship  and  prejudice  to  seek  the  truth 
that  makes  men  free. 

This  scientific  attitude  of  mind  will  be  enforced 
by  the  scientific  method,  the  method  which  pro¬ 
ceeds  first  to  the  collection  of  relevant  data  and 
the  evaluation  of  the  same,  and  then  to  the  orderly 
arrangement  and  classification  of  the  facts  se¬ 
cured,  analyzing  them  and  reducing  them  to  their 
simplest  terms,  in  order  to  deduce  from  them  their 
proper  sequences.  Such  a  discovered  relationship 
constitutes  a  “natural  law,”  the  statement  of 
which  is  one  of  the  ends  and  aims  of  science. 

One  of  the  most  important  results  of  scientific 
procedure  in  the  past  has  been  the  discovery  of 

[6] 


Introduction 


that  fundamental  law  of  nature,  namely,  its  uni¬ 
formity.  This  postulate  has  been  subjected  to  in¬ 
numerable  tests  of  observation  and  experiment, 
of  every  conceivable  kind,  in  nature  and  in  the 
laboratory,  until  it  has  come  to  stand  upon  an  ap¬ 
parently  impregnable  foundation.  This  means 
that  so  far  as  scientific  experience  has  gone  every 
event  in  nature  stands  as  the  end  of  a  series  of 
antecedent  events  which  constitute  its  proximate 
causes.  The  universality  of  the  law  of  cause  and 
effect  is  so  generally  recognized  that  it  is  not  nec¬ 
essary  to  dwell  on  it  further  here. 


[7] 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  SO-CALLED  WARFARE  OF 
SCIENCE  AND  THEOLOGY 


It  has  been  the  fashion  in  some  quarters  to  speak 
of  a  conflict  between  science  and  religion.  It  is 
commonly  believed  and  sometimes  taught  that  in 
this  conflict  religion  has  been  uniformly  defeated 
and  discredited.  This  is  far  from  being  the  case. 
The  fact  is  that  with  a  proper  understanding  of 
the  terms,  science  and  religion,  there  not  only  has 
never  been  but  there  cannot  be  a  conflict  between 
the  two.  Each  term  stands  for  a  system  of  knowl¬ 
edge  differing  from  the  other,  but  both  equally 
true  and  neither  contradictory.  Recognizing  these 
facts,  some  have  amended  the  statement  to  read, 
“The  Conflict  Between  Science  and  Theology,” 
seeking  to  distinguish  between  the  essential  ele¬ 
ments  of  true  religion  and  any  dogmatic  theories 
or  beliefs  regarding  it.  The  blame  is  shifted  to  the 
shoulders  of  professional  churchmen,  sometimes 
Roman  Catholic,  sometimes  Protestant  as  the  case 
may  be.  But  a  candid  examination  of  the  facts 
may  put  the  matter  in  a  somewhat  different  light 
still. 

Six  great  conflicts  have  occurred  in  this  so- 
called  “war  between  science  and  theology.”  The 

[9] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

first  of  these  was  upon  the  question  of  the  shape  of 
the  earth  and  its  relation  to  the  heavenly  bodies. 
Primitive  man,  limited  in  knowledge  and  experi¬ 
ence,  looked  about  him  and  proclaimed  the  earth 
to  be  flat.  He  turned  his  eyes  upward  to  the  sky 
and  circled  the  horizon  with  his  vision,  and  de¬ 
clared  that  the  earth  is  covered  with  a  canopy  or 
tent.  Noting  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  apparently 
hanging  from  this  canopy  like  so  many  lamps,  and 
noting  their  apparent  diurnal  movements,  he  con¬ 
cluded  that  the  canopy  of  the  sky  moves  from  east 
to  west  overhead.  Considering  the  means  which 
primitive  man  possessed  for  testing  his  hypothesis, 
this  was  really  a  scientific  theory.  It  gave  a  satis¬ 
factory  explanation  for  all  the  astronomical  phe- 
nemena  which  he  could  observe.  For  many  centu¬ 
ries  no  better  theory  was  advanced  and  no  knowl¬ 
edge  accumulated  to  contradict  it.  The  Greeks 
later  perceived  that  the  contrary  theory  of  the 
sphericity  of  the  earth  and  its  daily  revolution  on 
its  axis  would  equally  well  account  for  the  facts, 
but  they  were  in  no  position  to  prove  it. 

The  early  church  fathers  apparently  were  un¬ 
concerned  as  regards  these  two  rival  theories, 
some  held  to  the  one,  some  to  the  other,  with  no 
apparent  difference  in  respect  to  their  reputations 
for  orthodoxy.  This  indifference  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  church  had  weightier  matters  in  hand 
than  to  decide  a  purely  scientific  question.  In  the 
sixth  century  an  Egyptian  monk,  Cosmas  Indico- 
pleustes,  is  said  to  have  supported  the  theory  of  a 
flat  earth  by  an  appeal  to  Scripture,  but  in  the 

[10] 


Science  and  Theology 


seventh  century  we  find  Isidore  of  Seville,  and  in 
the  eighth,  the  Venerable  Bede,  both  declaring 
their  belief  in  the  earth's  sphericity.  Not  until 
Magellan’s  circumnavigation  of  the  globe  in  the 
sixteenth  century  was  the  matter  put  to  the  test 
of  scientific  demonstration.  It  is  hard  to  see  how 
this  “conflict”  can  be  truly  ascribed  to  a  warfare 
between  science  and  theology.  It  was,  as  always, 
a  conflict  between  knowledge  and  ignorance,  and 
it  was  settled  only  when  knowledge,  i.e science , 
became  sufficiently  complete  as  to  be  definite  and 
irrefutable. 

However,  the  observations  of  the  Saracen  as¬ 
tronomers  ;  the  experience  of  sailors  regarding  the 
appearance  and  disappearance  of  ships  at  the  hori¬ 
zon;  the  shadow  of  the  earth  on  the  moon  at  its 
eclipse ;  these,  and  other  things,  made  such  an  im¬ 
pression  upon  the  mind  of  Columbus  that  he  con¬ 
cluded  he  could  reach  India  by  sailing  westward 
over  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  But  when  he  undertook 
to  interest  men  of  vision  and  of  wealth  in  his  pro¬ 
ject,  he  was  long  baffled  and  rebuffed.  The  whole 
scientific  authority  of  his  day  was  against  him; 
practical  men  of  affairs  decided,  rightly  enough  in 
the  light  that  they  possessed,  that  his  proposition 
was  chimerical  and  promised  no  return  for  the  in¬ 
vestment  of  hard-earned  wealth.  In  the  meantime 
the  Church  had  accepted  the  current  scientific 
theory  of  the  astronomers,  and  had  found  Scrip¬ 
tural  grounds  for  its  support.  So  long  and  so  gen¬ 
erally  accepted  had  the  theory  of  a  flat  earth  be¬ 
come,  that  the  theology  of  the  day  had  adjusted 

['n] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

itself  to  it.  Hence  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  that 
there  were  those  ready  to  point  out  the  “irrelig¬ 
ious”  tendency  of  the  Columbian  proposition,  nor 
that  it  was  even  formally  condemned  by  the  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Salamanca  on  the  ground  that  it  was  contrary 
to  the  Pentateuch,  the  Psalms,  the  Prophecies,  the 
Gospels,  the  Epistles,  as  well  as  the  writings  of 
such  early  fathers  as  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Augus¬ 
tine,  St.  Jerome,  St.  Gregory,  St.  Basil  and  St. 
Ambrose.  Was  this  really  a  conflict  between 
science  and  theology?  Was  not  the  “science”  of 
the  day  wholly  in  accord  with  the  Church?  Or 
rather,  was  not  the  theological  dogma  based  upon 
the  current  scientific  hypothesis?  A  candid  his¬ 
torian  must  conclude  that  here  was  but  one  of  the 
many  conflicts  between  rival  scientific  theories , 
neither  of  which  had  yet  been  definitely  proven. 

The  second  “conflict”  arose  over  the  question 
of  the  geocentric  versus  the  heliocentric  theory  of 
the  solar  system.  According  to  the  former,  the 
earth  occupies  the  center  of  the  universe  and  in 
succession  there  revolve  around  her  the  moon, 
Mercury,  Venus,  the  Sun,  Mars,  Jupiter,  and 
Saturn ;  beyond  the  orbit  of  Saturn  was  thought  to 
be  the  “firmament”  of  fixed  stars.  This  was  the 
generally  accepted  scientific  theory  of  European 
astronomers  until  the  discoveries  of  Galileo  in 
1610.  According  to  the  heliocentric  theory,  the 
sun  is  the  center  of  the  solar  system  and  the  earth 
is  but  one  of  the  several  planets  which  revolve 
around  it. 

In  1543  Copernicus  published  his  great  work 

[12] 


Science  and  Theology 


“On  the  Revolutions  of  the  Heavenly  Bodies,”  in 
which  he  developed  the  heliocentric  theory  into  a 
scientific  hypothesis,  strictly  true  as  regards  its 
general  outlines,  but  now  demonstrably  in  error  as 
regards  many  details.  It  was  merely  a  hypothesis, 
however  brilliant,  and  was  not  proven  until  the 
discoveries  of  Galileo  in  1610  put  it  upon  a  firm 
foundation.  It  is  true  that  Copernicus  had  delayed 
the  publication  of  his  hypothesis  for  thirty-six 
years  out  of  fear  for  his  own  personal  safety,  and 
it  was  perhaps  well  for  him  that  the  first  printed 
copy  was  placed  in  his  hands  while  he  lay  upon  his 
death-bed,  for  the  Inquisition  condemned  it  as 
heretical  and  utterly  contrary  to  the  Scriptures. 
This  was  not  done,  however,  until  after  consulta¬ 
tion  had  been  held  with  the  supposedly  best  as¬ 
tronomers  of  the  day,  who  had  pronounced  the 
heliocentric  theory  as  wholly  without  scientific 
foundation.  Again  it  is  clear  that  the  conflict  was 
not  between  the  astronomical  science  of  that  day 
and  the  Church,  so  much  as  between  rival  scientific 
hypotheses. 

During  the  second  and  third  decades  of  the  sev¬ 
enteenth  century,  i.e.}  from  about  1609  to  1632, 
Galileo  was  studying  the  heavens  with  his  newly 
invented  telescope,  made  with  his  own  hands. 
With  this  crude  instrument  he  discovered  that  the 
face  of  the  moon,  just  like  the  earth,  is  dotted  with 
mountain  peaks  and  valleys ;  that  the  sun  revolves 
on  its  own  axis  and  has  its  lustre  dimmed  by  spots ; 
that  the  planets,  including  the  earth,  likewise  re¬ 
volve  on  their  own  axes  and  circle  around  the  sun  in 

[13] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

definite  orbits;  these  and  many  other  discoveries 
attesting  the  truth  of  the  Copemican  hypothesis 
were  revealed  by  that  crude  set  of  lenses  in  Gali¬ 
leo’s  hands  and  caused  profound  alarm  in  the 
ranks  of  astronomers  and  churchmen  alike.  The 
low  and  ignorant  denounced  these  discoveries  as 
frauds  and  deliberate  deceptions.  Some,  appar¬ 
ently  seeking  to  be  more  fair-minded,  affirmed 
that,  while  the  telescope  might  be  all  right  when 
used  as  a  spy-glass  to  view  distant  objects  here  on 
earth,  with  the  heavenly  bodies  it  was  altogether  a 
different  matter  and  not  to  be  relied  upon.  Note 
that  these  were  the  opinions  of  the  leading  astron¬ 
omers  as  well  as  the  theologians  of  the  time.  Con¬ 
sidering  this  fact  as  well  as  the  stage  of  civilization 
then  attained,  and  the  prominent  place  occupied 
by  theological  dogma  in  the  affairs  of  both  church 
and  state,  is  it  a  matter  for  surprise  that  charges 
of  “imposture,  heresy,  blasphemy,  and  atheism” 
were  brought  against  Galileo  ?  It  was  clearly  a  con¬ 
flict  between  newly  established  knowledge  and 
long  and  generally  accepted  ignorance.  Galileo 
was  a  leader  in  thought  far  in  advance  of  his  time 
and  suffered  the  fate  which  has  almost  uniformly 
been  meted  out  to  those  who  have  the  temerity  to 
go  counter  to  the  beliefs  of  the  ignorant  and  unin¬ 
formed  in  positions  of  power  and  authority, 
whether  the  matters  involved  be  questions  politi¬ 
cal,  moral,  or  religious  in  nature. 

Simple  minded  scientist  that  he  was,  conscious 
of  the  absolute  correctness  of  his  views,  Galileo 
thought  to  vindicate  himself  against  such  charges 

[14] 


Science  and  Theology 


in  a  letter  to  the  Abbe  Costelli,  in  which  he  sug¬ 
gested  “that  the  Scriptures  were  never  intended  to 
he  a  scientific  authority,  but  only  a  moral  guide.” 
Far  from  pouring  oil  on  the  troubled  waters,  this 
letter  succeeded  only  in  setting  fire  to  the  oil,  and 
he  was  summoned  before  the  Holy  Inquisition  un¬ 
der  the  indictment  that  he  taught  the  movement 
of  the  earth  around  the  sun,  a  doctrine  affirmed  by 
his  persecutors  to  be  “utterly  contrary  to  the 

X  J  J 

Scriptures.”  He  was  compelled  to  renounce  his 
heresy  on  pain  of  imprisonment.  This  was  in  1616, 
and  as  he  was  then  more  interested  in  a  further 
study  of  the  heavens  through  his  telescope  than  he 
was  in  the  delights  of  life  in  a  Roman  prison  cell, 
he  complied  with  the  decree,  denounced  his  teach¬ 
ing,  but  is  said  to  have  muttered  to  himself  as  he 
left  the  presence  of  the  judges,  “But  the  earth 
does  move  just  the  same!” 

Sixteen  years  later,  in  1632,  he  published  his 
noted  work,  “The  System  of  the  World,”  in  which 
he  set  forth  his  evidence  in  support  of  the  Coperni- 
can  hypothesis.  Once  again  he  was  brought  before 
the  Inquisition  at  Rome,  accused  of  heresy  in  that 
he  had  asserted  the  revolution  of  the  earth  around 
the  sun,  and  was  convicted.  He  was  first  com¬ 
pelled,  on  his  knees  and  with  his  hand  upon  the 
Bible,  to  abjure  and  curse  his  doctrine  of  the 
movement  of  the  earth  around  the  sun,  and  then, 
because  of  its  being  a  second  offense,  he  was 
thrown  into  prison,  treated  with  all  the  severity 
which  his  remorseless  persecutors  could  devise,  for 
the  remaining  ten  years  of  his  life,  and  after  his 

[15] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

death  the  punishment  was  prolonged  forever  by 
denying  him  burial  in  consecrated  ground. 

Painful  as  the  contemplation  of  these  details 
may  be,  still  it  is  clear  that  the  persecution  of 
Galileo  is  to  be  credited  not  so  much  to  theology 
as  to  the  state  of  civilization  in  which  he  chanced 
to  live.  It  was  an  age  in  which  ignorance  and 
superstition  were  rampant ;  an  age  in  which  kings 
and  popes  could  boast  less  real  knowledge  in  most 
lines  than  that  possessed  by  the  average  ten  year 
old  child  of  today.  It  was  an  age  in  which  the 
doctrine  of  love  and  charity  had  had  but  little  de¬ 
velopment.  While  in  one  sense  the  Church  was 
responsible,  in  another  and  truer  sense,  the  church¬ 
men  did  but  reflect  the  character  of  the  times.  No 
stream  rises  higher  than  its  source,  and  so  long  as 
ignorance  was  the  lot  of  even  the  leaders  of  the 
day,  so  long  as  the  knowledge  that  comes  from  ac¬ 
curate,  painstaking  investigation  of  nature  had 
not  been  acquired  save  by  the  exceptional  man  like 
Galileo,  so  long  might  such  scenes  as  that  just 
described,  be  expected.  The  conflict,  be  it  empha¬ 
sized,  was  not  so  much  between  science  and  the¬ 
ology,  as  between  science  and  ignorance.  Looking 
back"  through  the  light  of  the  present  day  knowl¬ 
edge  one  may  be  inclined  at  first  to  charge  the 
Church  with  inexcusable  slowness  in  seeing  the 
truth  and  accepting  it.  In  reality  the  churchmen 
were  more  interested  in  speculative  theology  than 
in  a  knowledge  of  natural  phenomena.  They  sim¬ 
ply  accepted  the  pseudo-science  of  their  day  in  so 
far  as  it  seemed  to  harmonize  with  their  dogmas. 

[16] 


Science  axd  Theology 


Now  that  the  heliocentric  theory  has  been  proved 
to  be  true,  theology  has  made  its  adjustments, 
and  no  one  finds  his  religious  faith  disturbed  by 
the  idea  that  the  earth  revolves  around  the  sun. 
The  immensely  grander  conception  of  the  uni¬ 
verse  and  its  Creator  opened  up  to  the  human 
mind  bv  the  heliocentric  doctrine  is  one  which  no 
one  now  would  consent  to  give  up.  It  has  become 
so  intimate  a  part  of  our  customary  thinking  that 
theologians  vie  with  astronomers  in  denouncing 
the  ignorance  of  one  who  proclaims  his  adherence 
to  the  geocentric  theory.  That  such  a  one  is  not  to- 
day  thrown  into  prison  and  persecuted  for  his 
views  is  due  rather  to  our  more  advanced  stage 
of  civilization  than  to  a  weakening  of  our  religious 
faith. 

The  next  great  conflict  between  science  and  ig¬ 
norance  came  with  the  announcement  of  Newton’s 
discovery  of  the  law  of  gravitation ,  an  application 
of  Kepler’s  three  laws  of  motion,  which  upon  their 
publication  had  been  condemned  by  the  ecclesias¬ 
tical  authorities  in  their  ignorance  because  these 
laws  seemed  to  them  to  limit  divine  providence 
by  the  operation  of  natural  law.  While  this  again 
appears  on  the  surface  as  a  conflict  with  theology, 
it  was  in  reality  a  conflict  between  ignorant  theo¬ 
logians  and  supposed  scientists  on  the  one  hand,  in 
short  between  those  bound  by  prejudice  and  tra¬ 
dition,  and  those  who  on  the  other  hand  because  of 
their  knowledge  were  in  advance  of  their  times. 
However,  Newton  wrote  when  the  struggles  of 
the  Protestant  Reformation  were  still  occupying 

[17] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

the  time  and  attention  of  the  theologians,  and  so, 
unnoticed  in  that  age  of  warring  ecclesiastics, 
Newton’s  sublime  theory  gradually  established  it¬ 
self  without  subjecting  its  author  to  the  penalties 
suffered  by  Galileo.  Moreover,  the  law  of  gravita¬ 
tion  requires  for  its  proper  understanding  a  de¬ 
gree  of  knowledge  by  no  means  widespread  at 
that  time.  Its  relation  to  current  theology  was 
therefore  unappreciated  except  by  the  few,  though 
destined  eventually  to  have  a  profound  influence, 
perhaps  because  perceived  only  by  the  most  intel¬ 
ligent.  That  theologians  to  a  certain  etxent  made 
the  mistake  of  not  adjusting  their  dogmas  to  ac¬ 
cord  with  Newton’s  doctrine  was,  as  LeConte  has 
pointed  out,  the  real  ground  of  the  18th  century 
skepticism  as  instanced  by  Voltaire  and  his  fol¬ 
lowers.  But  after  all  the  contest  was  between  pro¬ 
found  knowledge  and  ignorance.  That  the  result 
of  the  conflict  was  not  inimical  to  religion  is  seen 
in  the  fact  that  no  one  now  appears  to  have  his 
Christian  faith  disturbed  by  the  theory  of  gravita¬ 
tion. 

The  next  great  conflict  occurred  in  the  realm  of 
geology  over  the  question  of  the  antiquity  of  the 
earth.  By  scientific  methods ,  Bishop  Usher,  in 
1650,  had  fixed  a  date  for  the  creation  of  the 
world.  His  method  was  faulty  and  no  Biblical 
scholar  today  accepts  his  results.  Yet  in  the  17th 
century,  Lightfoot,  vice-chancellor  of  the  Univer¬ 
sity  of  Cambridge,  is  said  to  have  “declared  that 
the  Scriptures  taught  that  'heaven  and  earth,  cen¬ 
ter  and  circumference,  were  created  all  together, 

[18] 


Science  and  Theology 


in  the  same  instant,’  and  that  'this  work  took  place 
and  man  was  created  by  the  Trinity  on  October 
23,  4004  b.c.,  at  nine  o’clock  in  the  morning.’  ” 
Needless  to  say  the  Bible  lends  no  countenance  to 
any  such  conclusion  as  this,  yet  because  it  was  ap¬ 
parently  arrived  at  by  logical  reasoning,  the  mul¬ 
titude  received  it  as  part  and  parcel  of  their  theo¬ 
logical  belief.  When,  therefore,  geologists,  like 
Lvell,  announced  their  conclusion  that  the  earth 
had  existed  throughout  untold  ages  before  the  ad¬ 
vent  of  man,  most  of  the  devout  Christians  of  the 
period  were  horror-struck  and  were  strenuously 
disinclined  to  adjust  their  thinking  to  accord  with 
the  new  discoveries.  The  discussion  on  this  ques¬ 
tion  was  often  marked  by  bitterness  and  anger, 
but  inevitably  the  hypothesis  founded  upon  inac¬ 
curate  calculation  and  inadequate  knowledge  of 
fact  had  to  give  way.  Ignorance  was  vanquished 
by  science  until  today  even  the  most  orthodox 
have  adjusted  their  theological  thinking  to  the 
idea  of  the  great  antiquity  of  the  earth.  Now  that 
our  eyes  have  been  opened  even  he  who  runs  may 
read  the  evidence  that  the  geological  record  ex¬ 
tends  over  millions  of  years. 

The  fifth  conflict,  that  over  the  antiquity  of 
man,  and  the  sixth,  that  about  evolution,  are  con¬ 
sidered  at  length  in  later  chapters  of  this  volume. 
We  shall  anticipate  the  conclusions  here  only  to 
say  that  there  are  many  intelligent  and  fully  in¬ 
formed  among  both  scientists  and  theologians 
who  find  their  Christian  faith  in  no  wise  harmed 
by  the  scientific  doctrine  regarding  both  these 

[19] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 


questions.  May  it  not  be  that  the  reason  why  many 
still  look  askance  at  these  doctrines  and  fear  their 
effect  upon  Christian  faith  and  morals  is  that  they 
have  considered  them  only  superficially  and  in 
connection  with  ill-grounded  tradition,  and  that 
when  seen  in  their  true  light,  they  will  be  found  to 
be  no  more  disastrous  to  Christian  faith  than  the 
heliocentric  theory  of  our  universe  or  the  law  of 
gravitation?  In  the  light  of  past  experience,  let 
us  be  careful  how  we  congeal  our  theology  around 
the  outgrown  scientific  hypotheses  which  were  de- 
veloped  when  ignorance  of  the  laws  of  nature  was 
profound,  lest  unhappily  we  may  find  ourselves 
at  last  holding  but  the  dead  husks  of  theology  in 
our  hands  while  the  world  in  general  has  passed 
us  by  to  receive  joyously  the  new  light  of  truth. 
Let  us  be  careful  lest  we  be  found  eventually 
standing  on  the  side  of  ignorant  tradition  instead 
of  real  knowledge.  For  be  assured,  ignorance  can 
never  triumph  in  the  long  run  over  knowledge  of 
the  truth.  Whatever  is  true  is  of  God  and  will 
prevail. 


[20] 


PART  ONE 

SCIENCE 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  FACT  OF  EVOLUTION 

The  origin  of  the  idea  of  the  gradual  development 
of  species  by  descent  with  modification  is  frequent¬ 
ly  but  erroneously  ascribed  to  Darwin.  While 
that  great  English  naturalist  did  more  perhaps 
than  any  other  one  man  to  secure  the  general  ac¬ 
ceptance  of  the  idea  by  scientists,  still  he  was  by 
no  means  the  first  to  advocate  it.  As  far  back  as 
written  history  goes,  men  have  speculated  upon 
the  method  of  creation.  Three  theories  have  been 
held,  each  about  as  old  as  the  others.  These  are: 
first,  the  theory  that  species  have  always  existed 
as  they  now  are;  second,  the  theory  of  creation  by 
special  divine  fiat;  and  third,  the  theory  of  the 
gradual  development  of  increasingly  complex 
species  from  very  simple  beginnings. 

The  first  of  these  theories  is  demonstrably  false 

•/ 

and  has  therefore  had  little  influence  on  the  course 
of  human  thought.  The  other  two  have  been  alter¬ 
nately  or  concurrently  held  by  speculative  phi¬ 
losophers  since  the  days  of  ancient  Greece,  and 
the  early  Hebrew  authors.  The  theory  of  special 
creation  which  during  the  16th  century  was  adopt¬ 
ed  as  the  orthodox  teaching  of  the  Church  is  one 
which  obviously  cannot  be  subjected  to  direct 
scientific  proof  or  disproof.  If  creation  took  place 

[23] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

in  the  miraculous  manner  postulated  by  this  theo¬ 
ry  there  was  no  man  present  to  record  his  observa¬ 
tions  of  the  event,  and  like  any  other  long  past 
historical  occurrence  can  only  be  established  by 
the  law  of  probability  or  by  some  other  than  hu¬ 
man  testimony.  The  third  theory  regards  the  crea¬ 
tion  as  a  continuous  process  going  on  today  as 
well  as  in  the  past,  and  is  therefore  subject  to 
demonstration  or  disproof  by  current  events.  It  is 
the  only  one  of  the  three  which  can  be  subjected 
to  scientific  investigation,  and  for  this  reason,  if 
for  no  other,  commends  itself  as  a  working  hy¬ 
pothesis  to  scientists.  While  the  demonstration  of 
the  incorrectness  of  the  theory  of  evolution  would 
not  thereby  logically  demonstrate  the  correctness 
of  the  theory  of  special  creation,  nevertheless  since 
the  latter  is  the  only  other  theory  of  creation  at 
present  in  the  field,  the  practical  effect  would  be  to 
establish  that  theory  in  the  minds  of  people  gen¬ 
erally. 

Before  giving  a  resume  of  the  evidence  on  which 
scientists  base  their  conclusion  that  evolution  is  a 
demonstrated  fact,  attention  must  be  called  to  a 
general  misapprehension  among  those  who  have 
not  given  this  question  special  attention.  This  mis¬ 
apprehension  is  the  common  one  of  confusing  the 
Darwinian  theory  of  natural  selection,  or  as  Spen¬ 
cer  termed  it,  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  with  the 
idea  of  evolution  itself.  Various  attempts  at  an 
explanation  of  the  method  of  evolution  had  been 
advanced  before  the  time  of  Darwin,  notably  the 
Buffonian  theory  of  the  effect  of  changes  in  en- 

[24] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 

vironmental  conditions,  such  as  climate,  elevations 
and  subsidence  of  the  earth’s  crust,  with  concomi¬ 
tant  expansions  or  contractions  of  the  sea,  etc.; 
secondly,  the  Lamarckian  theory  of  the  inherited 
effects  of  use  and  disuse,  or  more  technically 
stated,  the  theory  of  the  inheritance  of  bodily 
characteristics  acquired  during  the  lifetime  of  the 
individual  animal  or  plant ;  and  finally  the  Cuvier- 
ian  theory  of  catastrophic  extinctions  of  local 
faunas  and  floras  followed  by  restocking  through 
the  immigration  of  new  forms  from  elsewhere,  or, 
as  D’Orbigny  suggested,  by  a  succession  of  special 
creations.  None  of  these  hypotheses  gained  wide 
acceptance  among  the  scientists  of  their  day,  be¬ 
cause  they  were  based  almost  wholly  upon  specu¬ 
lative  considerations.  Darwin’s  theory  wras  based 
upon  well  established  and  well  known  facts,  mar¬ 
shalled  in  numbers  so  great  as  to  appeal  at  once 
to  biologists,  and  upon  perfectly  logical  deduc¬ 
tions  from  these  facts.  Much  of  the  evidence  on 
which  Darwin  rested  the  support  of  his  theory  told 
weightily  in  favor  of  the  underlying  hypothesis  of 
evolution  and  did  more  than  anything  else  had 
done  to  bring  about  the  general  acceptance  of  that 
idea  by  his  scientific  colleagues.  But  Darwin’s 

theory  of  natural  selection  has  been  found  inade- 
%/ 

quate  to  explain  all  the  facts  and  phenomena  of 
nature  to  which  it  has  been  applied.  Its  sufficiency 
as  an  explanation  has  been  under  fire  from  the 
scientific  ranks  almost  from  the  moment  of  its 
publication  in  1859. 

Echoes  of  this  attack  upon  Darwin’s  explana- 

[25] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

tion  of  the  method  by  which  evolution  may  have 

occurred  have  been  carried  over  into  the  minds  of 

the  non-scientific  public  and  have  led  to  the  entire- 

lv  erroneous  conclusion  that  the  idea  of  evolution 
•/ 

itself  was  under  fire.  The  popular  association  of 
Darwin’s  name  with  the  authorship  of  the  theory 
of  evolution  has  been  responsible  for  this  misun¬ 
derstanding  of  the  situation.  Several  theories  have 
been  advanced  of  late  vears  which  were  intended 
more  or  less  entirely  to  replace  the  Darwinian 
theory  of  natural  selection  as  an  explanation  of 
the  evolutionary  process,  but  in  every  case  they 
have  been  founded  upon  the  postulate  of  the  cor¬ 
rectness  of  the  evolutionary  idea.  Some  of  these, 
notably  the  De  Vriesian  theory  of  mutations,  have 
had  the  merit  of  having  been  based  upon  the  ex¬ 
perimental  method,  and  are  therefore  hypotheses 
that  appeal  to  biologists  in  method  if  not  in  re¬ 
sults.  But  it  must  be  understood  that  Darwin’s 
theory  and  all  the  others  which  have  been  ad- 
vanced  in  explanation  of  the  method  of  evolution 
may  prove  inadequate  or  even  incorrect  without 
in  the  least  affecting  the  standing  of  the  evolu¬ 
tionary  idea  itself. 

With  this  situation  clearly  in  mind  it  may  be 
profitable  to  give  a  resume  of  the  evidence  on 
which  the  doctrine  of  evolution  rests.  Only  a  brief 
outline  can  be  given,  for  the  literature  devoted  to 
this  subject  would  fill  a  fair-sized  library.  The  in¬ 
terested  reader  will  find  numerous  volumes  pre¬ 
senting  the  evidence  in  greater  or  less  detail, 
among  others,  “The  Theory  of  Evolution,”  by  Dr. 

[26] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 

W.  B.  Scott,  of  Princeton  University,  will  be 
found  to  give  an  excellent,  but  fairly  brief  expo¬ 
sition,  free  from  technicalities.  “Readings  in  Evo¬ 
lution,  Heredity  and  Eugenics,”  by  Dr.  IT.  H. 
Newman,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  is  an  ex¬ 
cellent  introduction  to  the  subject,  and  of  course 
no  one  can  afford  to  overlook  that  old  classic,  Dar¬ 
win’s  “Origin  of  Species.”  It  would  be  better  to 
begin  one’s  reading  with  one  or  both  of  the  more 
modern  works  cited  before  reading  the  last. 

In  1758,  the  famous  Swedish  naturalist,  Lin¬ 
naeus,  published  the  tenth  edition  of  his  “Systema 
Naturae”  in  which  he  named  and  described  about 
4,000  species  of  animals,  all  that  were  known  to 
zoologists  at  that  time.  At  the  present  time  the 
number  of  animal  species  that  have  been  named 
and  described  is  at  least  one  hundred  times  as 
great,  and  it  has  been  estimated  that  probably  not 
half  of  the  existing  species  have  yet  come  into  the 

hands  of  the  svstematist  or  classifier  of  animals. 

%/ 

In  the  davs  of  Linnaeus  when  the  number  of 

%J 

known  kinds  of  animals  and  plants  was  compara¬ 
tively  small  the  term  “species”  had  a  definite  sig¬ 
nificance.  It  was  thought  that  on  the  day  of  crea¬ 
tion  a  single  pair  of  each  kind  had  been  made  out 
of  hand,  and  that  the  representatives  of  each 
species  today  were  the  lineal  descendants  of  the 
original  pair.  Each  species  seemed  to  be  a  strictly 
circumscribed  group  that  could  be  assigned  to  a 
definite  pigeon-hole  in  a  museum  collection.  As 
collections  increased,  however,  it  was  soon  found 
that  hitherto  supposedly  distinct  species  had  in- 

[27] 


Evolution  and  Chkistian  Faith 

tergrades  so  that  the  more  extensively  were  these 
species  known  the  greater  was  the  difficulty  of  as¬ 
signing  them  definite  limits.  This  difficulty  was 
met  by  the  supposition  that  species  may  have  un¬ 
dergone  modifications  in  various  directions  and 
that  instead  of  there  having  been  originally  cre¬ 
ated  a  pair  of  each  kind  now  existing,  there  had 
been  created  a  pair  that  were  the  lineal  ancestors 
not  of  a  single  but  of  several  present-day  species. 
Such  a  group  of  related  species  constitutes  what 
biologists  term  a  “genus”;  according  to  this  hy¬ 
pothesis  there  were  originally  created,  not  species 
in  the  present  sense  of  that  term,  but  genera.  For 
example,  the  genus  Canis  includes  all  the  dogs,  i.e. 
wolves,  coyotes,  etc.,  as  well  as  the  various  types 
of  the  domesticated  dogs.  It  was  thought  that 
there  had  been  originally  created  a  single  pair  of 
dogs,  but  that  the  descendants  of  this  original 
pair  after  their  departure  from  the  Garden  of 
Eden  had  spread  over  the  surface  of  the  earth,  and 
in  response  to  the  different  climates  and  other 
conditions  of  life  had  varied  into  the  species  or 
varieties  now  known. 

However,  a  wider  acquaintance  with  the  earth’s 
fauna  soon  showed  that  even  genera  sometimes 
intergrade,  or  else  that  there  are  or  have  been 
(preserved  as  fossils)  forms  which  could  not  be 
placed  in  the  genera  as  previously  understood. 
Similar  genera  are  considered  to  constitute  a 
family.  Thus  the  dogs,  wolves,  foxes,  jackals,  etc., 
all  doglike ,  yet  differing  in  important  generic 
characters,  constitute  the  family  Canidae.  Inter- 

[28] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 

grades  between  the  genera,  however,  led  to  the 
conception  that  probably  not  the  genera  as  such, 
but  the  family  (in  this  technical  sense)  had  been 
represented  by  a  single  pair  in  the  original  crea¬ 
tion.  But  families  of  animals  also  show  certain 
important  resemblances  in  structure  so  that  they 
are  associated  in  groups  of  a  higher  rank  termed 
orders.  Thus,  the  dogs,  bears,  weasels,  cats,  et  al., 
constitute  the  order  Carnivora ,  or  the  flesh-eating 
animals.  At  the  present  time  these  families  are 
quite  distinct,  but  in  past  geological  times  there 
were  annectant  forms  which  render  it  very  diffi¬ 
cult  to  separate  families.  The  same  is  true  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  Classes  into  which  the  orders  have  been 
grouped,  and  the  classes  which  constitute  a  given 
Branch  of  the  Animal  Kingdom  are  often  more  or 
less  closely  united  by  intergrading  forms.  For  ex¬ 
ample  it  is  sometimes  impossible  to  decide  whether 
a  given  fossil  should  be  classed  as  a  reptile  or  a 
batrachian.  Even  between  the  branches  of  the  Ani¬ 
mal  Kingdom  some  clearly  intergrading  forms 
are  known.  Thus,  there  is  a  group  of  animals 
known  as  P eripatus ,  which  in  about  half  of  its 
structural  characteristics  mav  be  classed  with  the 
segmented  worms,  but  on  account  of  about  an 
equal  number  of  structural  features  it  resembles 
the  Arthropods,  or  the  branch  which  includes  such 
forms  as  the  lobsters,  crabs,  spiders,  and  insects. 

Now,  applying  the  hypothesis  of  special  crea¬ 
tion  to  these  facts,  the  specially  created  “parent” 
becomes  in  turn  the  ancestor  not  of  a  species  mere¬ 
ly,  nor  of  a  genus,  nor  family,  nor  order,  nor  class, 

[29  f 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

nor  even  a  whole  branch  of  the  Animal  Kingdom, 
but  it  becomes  a  very  primitive  lowly  organized 
creature  that  is  ancestral  to  all  or  manv  of  the 

•J 

now  widely  different  species,  which  have  arisen  by 
a  process  of  descent  with  modification.  In  short, 
the  theory  of  special  creation  becomes  indistin¬ 
guishable  from  the  theory  of  evolution. 

The  founder  of  the  science  of  comparative 
anatomy  was  Cuvier,  the  leader  of  biological  in¬ 
vestigation  in  France  during  the  first  third  of  the 
nineteenth  centurv.  He  found  that  in  regard  to 
structure  the  whole  Animal  Kingdom  is  built  up¬ 
on  only  a  few  (four  according  to  Cuvier)  funda¬ 
mental  types  or  plans.  These  he  regarded  as  ideal 
types  or  concepts  of  the  Creator,  like  the  blue¬ 
prints  of  an  architect,  but  modified  in  detail  in  dif¬ 
ferent  species.  Similarity  in  structure  therefore 
meant  subjective,  not  objective ,  relationship  be¬ 
tween  the  forms  displaying  it.  Each  organism, 
barring  accident  or  disease,  was  supposed  to  have 
been  perfectly  designed  for  its  place  and  function 
in  nature.  Adaptation,  which  is  so  generally  ap¬ 
parent  in  the  relations  between  organisms  and 
their  environment,  was  held  to  be  the  result  of  the 
perfect  adjustment  of  the  Creator’s  plan  to  the 
end  in  view.  Intensive  study  of  adaptation  has 
served  to  make  clear  beyond  the  possibility  of 
contradiction  that  perfect  adaptation  rarely,  if 
ever,  is  to  be  found  in  nature.  The  idea  that  a  giv¬ 
en  organ  is  the  best  possible  for  its  use  can  be 
shown  to  be  untrue  in  innumerable  cases.  Organs 
are  adapted  to  their  use  to  the  extent  that  they 

[30] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 

enable  their  possessors  “to  get  by”  and  usually  no 
more.  Thus,  the  vertebrate  eye  was  a  favorite  ob¬ 
ject  for  discussion  on  this  view,  but  the  truth  is 
that  as  a  mechanism  for  receiving  and  recording 
images  of  the  external  world,  it  is  so  imperfect 

that  were  a  camera  maker  to  try  to  sell  such  an 

* 

imperfect  product,  he  would  soon  find  himself 
without  a  market.  Any  eye-specialist  can  point 
out  numerous  ways  in  which  the  structure  of  the 
eye,  wonderful  as  it  is,  might  be  improved  to 
serve  better  its  assigned  function.  In  fact,  every 
pair  of  eye-glasses  bears  mute  testimony  to  this 
fact.  The  realization  of  these  facts  was  a  hard 
blow  to  the  advocates  of  special  creation,  for  it 
would  indicate  a  lack  of  skill  or  foresight  not  to  be 
thought  of  in  an  all- wise  and  all-powerful  Creator. 

Moreover,  an  examination  of  the  structure  of 
the  corresponding  organs  in  various  animals  sets 
the  matter  in  a  quite  different  light.  For  example, 
organs  for  locomotion  may  serve  the  functions  of 
crawling,  walking,  running,  swimming,  climbing, 
flying,  or  burrowing.  It  is  evident  that  a  limb  per¬ 
fectly  adapted  for  flying  needs  to  be  arranged 
quite  differently  from  one  adapted  for  burrowing 
or  running.  To  be  perfectly  adapted  for  its  par¬ 
ticular  function  each  should  have  its  own  particu¬ 
lar  structural  plan.  The  sails  of  a  yacht  are  not  de¬ 
signed  on  the  plan  of  a  screw-propeller  or  paddle- 
wheel.  And  vet,  an  examination  of  the  limbs  of  a 
turtle,  a  bear,  a  horse,  a  whale,  a  monkey,  a  bird, 
a  bat,  and  a  mole  reveals  the  fact  that  these  are 
all  built  on  the  same  fundamental  plan ;  that  bone 

[31] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

for  bone,  and  muscle  for  muscle  they  are  all  essen¬ 
tially  alike.  The  differences  are  superficial  and 
consist  in  the  greater  development  of  certain  parts 
and  the  less  development  of  other  parts.  More¬ 
over,  each  of  these  limbs  has  exactly  the  same  ori¬ 
gin  in  the  embryo,  and  in  the  fossil  remains  of 
their  annectant  species  these  limbs  can  frequently 
be  seen  to  grade  into  a  common  primitive  type. 
These  similarities  in  origin  and  structure  of  cor¬ 
responding  organs  are  indicative  of  homology , 
that  is  they  mean  descent  with  modification  in 
adaptation  to  different  uses;  in  short,  they  indi¬ 
cate  genetic  relationship.  On  the  basis  of  special 
creation  they  have  no  meaning  or  else  seem  to  limit 
the  exercise  of  creative  power. 

But  still  more  suggestive  is  the  presence  in  all 
animals  of  a  greater  or  less  number  (over  200  in 
man)  of  vestigial  structures  which  in  related 
species  are  often  well  developed  and  of  functional 
importance.  This  fact  has  no  meaning  on  the 
hypothesis  of  special  creation,  while  on  the  hy¬ 
pothesis  of  descent  with  modification  it  finds  a 
satisfactory  explanation  on  the  ground  that  these 
are  organs  once  well  developed  and  useful  to  the 
ancestors  of  the  species  in  which  they  now  occur 
only  as  useless  or  even  harmful  vestiges.  That 
they  are  not  always  merely  useless,  in  which  case 
they  often  require  an  unnecessary  expenditure  of 
energy  for  their  maintenance,  but  are  sometimes 
harmful  even  to  the  extent  of  being  the  seat  of 
fatal  maladies,  may  be  recognized  in  the  familiar 
example  of  the  vermiform  appendix  in  man.  The 

[32] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 

fact  that  certain  snakes  have  recognizable  vestiges 
of  limbs  can  only  mean  that  these  animals  have 

V 

descended  from  ancestors  which  possessed  loco¬ 
motor  appendages;  the  presence  of  vestigial  in¬ 
cisor  teeth  in  the  upper  jaw  of  the  embryo  calf,  or 
of  teeth  in  both  jaws  of  the  embryo  parrot,  can 

only  be  an  indication  that  the  ancestors  of  our 
•/ 

cattle  had  upper  incisors  and  the  ancestors  of 
modern  parrots  were  toothed.  In  fact,  toothed 
birds  occur  as  fossils  in  the  Cretaceous  deposits  of 
Kansas  and  in  the  Jurassic  of  Germany.  The 
clearly  developed  third  eye  on  the  top  of  the  head 
of  a  New  Zealand  lizard  ( Sphenodon )  indicates 
that  certain  vestigial  structures  on  the  roof  of  the 
brain  in  other  reptiles,  birds  and  mammals,  are  the 
vestiges  of  organs  of  sight.  That  these  vestiges 
occur  in  all  these  classes  of  vertebrates  argues  for 
a  common  though  distant  ancestry. 

A  study  of  the  embryological  development  of 
animals  reveals  a  large  series  of  facts  hard  to  ex¬ 
plain  on  the  basis  of  special  creation,  but  clearly 
what  would  be  expected  if  descent  with  modifica¬ 
tion  has  occurred.  Thus,  in  the  development  of 
the  mammalian  heart,  one  finds  it  at  an  early  stage 
in  the  form  of  a  simple  straight  tube,  suggestive 
of  the  heart  in  that  most  primitive  vertebrate, 
Amphioccus.  By  the  process  of  elongation  and 
twisting,  accompanied  by  unecpial  growth  in  vari¬ 
ous  regions,  this  simple  tube  becomes  converted 
into  a  two-chambered  heart  in  all  respects  similar 
in  plan  and  relationships  to  the  two-chambered 
heart  of  the  fish.  By  the  formation  of  septa,  or 

'  [33] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

walls,  these  two  chambers,  an  auricle  and  a  ventri¬ 
cle,  are  divided,  first  into  three  chambers,  two 
auricles  and  a  ventricle,  recalling  the  heart  of  a 
frog  or  reptile,  and  then  into  four  chambers,  char¬ 
acteristic  of  the  bird  or  mammal. 

Leading  away  from  the  two-chambered  heart 
of  the  embryo  of  a  reptile,  bird  or  mammal,  there 
is  a  series  of  paired  blood  vessels,  aortic  arches , 
which  pass  dorsalward  in  the  side  walls  of  the 
neck  between  a  series  of  openings  identical  in 
manner  of  formation,  location  and  arrangement 
with  the  gill-slits  in  the  embryo  fish.  The  aortic 
arches,  six  pairs  in  number,  undergo  certain  modi¬ 
fications  in  the  course  of  embryonic  development 
bv  which  they  become  converted  into  the  gill  ves- 
sels  of  the  fishes ;  into  three  pairs  of  arches  in  the 
frog;  a  single  pair  in  the  reptiles;  and  finally  into 
a  single  unpaired  vessel  in  birds  and  mammals. 
But  in  the  last  mentioned  cases,  the  arch  on  the 
right  side  persists  in  the  bird,  while  it  is  the  one  on 
the  left  that  remains  in  mammals.  On  the  hypothe¬ 
sis  of  special  creation  this  very  complex  history  of 
the  aorta  is  unintelligible,  while  on  the  hypothesis 
of  descent  with  modification  it  is  quite  in  accord 
with  the  idea  that  the  ancestral  forms  of  the  higher 
animals  passed  through  a  stage  in  which  they 
breathed  by  means  of  gills.  In  fact,  in  the  case  of 
the  frog,  that  very  thing  happens  to  this  day  in 
individual  development,  since  in  the  tadpole  there 
are  gills  and  gill-slits  supplied  with  aortic  arches, 
which  at  the  metamorphosis  become  transformed 
into  the  arrangement  found  in  the  adult  frog. 

[34] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 

The  brain,  the  respiratory  organs,  the  excretory 
system,  the  reproductive  system,  in  fact  all  organ 
systems  of  the  vertebrate  tell  the  same  story.  But 
we  have  sketched  only  a  late  chapter  in  the  his¬ 
tory.  The  earlier  chapters  are  just  as  illuminating. 
Every  multicellular  organism  begins  its  individu¬ 
al  existence  as  a  single  unit  of  structure  called  a 
cell.  This  cell  is  in  its  essential  structures  identical 
with  the  simplest  one-celled  animals  {Protozoa) . 
By  the  process  of  cell-division,  this  egg-cell,  in 
which  the  multicellular  animal  starts  its  develop¬ 
ment,  becomes  converted  into  a  spherical  body 
structurally  resembling  a  colonial  protozoan,  such 
as  I ’ olvooc .  By  a  process  of  folding  in  on  one  side 
this  sphere  ( blastula )  becomes  converted  into  a 
two-layered  sack  ( gastrula )  essentially  like  the 
adult  form  of  Microhydra ,  a  little  freshwater  rela¬ 
tive  of  the  corals  and  jellyfishes.  From  this  point 
on,  the  different  branches  of  the  animal  kingdom 
diverge  in  the  course  of  their  development,  though 
here  and  there  stages  are  found  that  seem  to  indi¬ 
cate  a  closer  relationship  between  some  of  them 
than  exists  between  these  and  other  branches. 
Thus  among  an  interesting  group  of  very  small 
animals,  called  Pcotifers  because  they  appear  to 
have  wheels  on  their  heads,  there  is  a  genus  named 
Trochosphaera which,  when  adult,  very  closely 
resembles  a  larval  form  found  in  many  worms  and 
molluscs.  The  larva  of  the  segmented  worms  has 
some  resemblances  to  the  very  young  embryonic 
stages  of  the  vertebrates. 

This  parallelism  in  development  among  the  em- 

[35] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

bryos  of  many  species,  so  well  marked  among  the 
vertebrates,  was  long  ago  pointed  out  by  Agassiz, 
who  however  apparently  did  not  realize  its  force 
as  an  argument  for  descent  with  modification. 
Often  these  resemblances  are  not  merely  general 
but  pertain  to  relatively  unimportant  details.  The 
wing  of  the  bird,  for  example,  at  one  stage,  can¬ 
not  be  distinguished  from  the  fore-limb  of  a  cat; 
in  fact,  in  the  chick  “the  hand  is  represented  in  the 
embryo  of  six  days  (incubation)  by  the  spatulate 
extremity  of  the  fore-limb,  which  includes  the  ele¬ 
ments  of  the  carpus  ('wrist),  metacarpus  (palm), 
and  phalanges  (fingers).  From  this  expansion 
five  digital  (finger)  rays  grow  out  simultaneous¬ 
ly,  the  first  (thumb)  and  fifth  (little  finger)  be¬ 
ing  relatively  small ;  the  second,  third,  and  fourth 
represent  the  persistent  digits.  .  .  .  Thus  there  are 
distinct  indications  of  a  pentadactyl  ( five-finger- 
ered)  stage  in  the  development  of  the  bird’s  wing.” 
(F.  R.  Lillie,  “The  Development  of  the  Chick,”  p. 
436.)  One  needs  only  to  examine  the  next  chicken 
wing  served  on  his  table  to  understand  how  great¬ 
ly  this  fundamental  five-fingered  plan  is  modified 
in  the  adult.  The  facts  can  mean  only  that  the  an¬ 
cestors  of  modern  birds  were  at  one  time  possessed 
of  five-fingered  hands. 

But  the  line  of  evidence  which  perhaps  more 
than  any  other  was  convincing  to  Darwin  and 
his  contemporaries  was  that  derived  from  the  geo¬ 
logical  record.  This  is  now  much  more  completely 
known  than  it  was  fifty  years  ago  and  every  new 
expedition  sent  out  in  search  of  fossils  but  piles 

[36] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 

up  the  evidence  for  the  derivation  of  species  by 
descent  with  modification.  This  evidence  is  of  two 
sorts :  general  and  special. 

The  general  evidence  is  found  in  the  fact  that 
the  oldest  strata  composing  the  earth’s  crust,  in 
which  there  is  anv  evidence  of  life,  indicate  the 
existence  only  of  the  very  simplest  unicellular 
plants.  The  earliest  known  animal  fossils  com¬ 
prise  only  unicellular  forms;  successively  more 
recent  strata  contain  the  fossil  remains  at  first  of 
the  most  generalized  sorts  of  invertebrates,  such 
as  sponges,  jellyfishes  and  worms;  then  by  the 
Cambrian  times — the  earliest  fossiliferous  rocks 
known  to  Darwin — practically  all  the  chief  inver¬ 
tebrate  branches  were  represented  by  primitive 
forms  which  gave  place  in  later  periods  to  the 
more  highly  specialized  members  of  the  same 
groups.  The  branch  of  the  vertebrates,  or  back¬ 
boned  animals,  was  the  last  to  make  its  appearance, 
in  the  form,  so  far  as  it  is  now  known,  of  primitive 
fishes.  Lung-fishes  and  batrachians  came  in  later; 
still  later  the  reptiles  arrived  as  aquatic  forms  so 
primitive  as  to  be  distinguished  from  the  batrachi¬ 
ans  sometimes  only  with  difficulty  by  the  expert. 
During  the  Mesozoic  age  the  reptiles  diverged  in 
many  directions  and  became  adapted  to  life  on 
land  as  well  as  in  the  water,  some  becoming  huge 
and  bizarre  in  appearance,  while  others  acquired 
the  power  of  flight.  In  the  Triassic  the  first  mam¬ 
mals  made  their  appearance,  small  primitive,  pre¬ 
sumably  egg-laying  creatures  displaying  numer¬ 
ous  structural  resemblances  to  some  of  the  rep- 

[37] 


Evolution  and  Chkistian  Faith 

tiles.  As  the  reptiles  decreased  in  importance  the 
mammals  advanced  to  replace  them,  displaying 
divergent  adaptations  to  all  possible  modes  of  life, 
some  flying,  some  swift-footed  and  cursorial,  oth¬ 
ers  heavy  limbed  and  slow  of  foot.  The  egg-laying 
mammals,  for  the  most  part,  gave  place  to  those 
which  bring  forth  their  young  alive.  In  the  Juras¬ 
sic  the  first  known  birds  appeared,  but  still  so  rep¬ 
tilian  with  their  teeth,  long  many-vertebrated  tail, 
and  weakly  developed  wings  with  three  free  fin¬ 
gers,  that  were  it  not  for  their  feathers  they  might 
readily  be  mistaken  for  reptiles.  The  Cretaceous 
birds  were  still  toothed,  though  diversified  both  as 
aquatic  and  as  land-living  species.  All  of  these 
facts  speak  so  conclusively  against  the  traditional 
view  of  creation  and  so  clearly  in  favor  of  a  pro¬ 
gressive  development  that  it  is  not  surprising  that 
if  the  evolutionary  hypothesis  had  not  already 
been  advanced,  paleontologists  would  have  been 
driven  to  its  formulation  on  the  basis  of  their  dis¬ 
coveries  alone. 

The  special  evidence  from  the  geological  record 
is  found  in  the  more  detailed  history  of  certain 
family  groups,  like  that  of  the  camels,  the  ele¬ 
phants,  or  the  horses.  Despite  the  fact  that  oppo¬ 
nents  of  the  evolutionary  theory  have  dubbed  the 
pedigree  of  the  horse  “evolution’s  hobby-horse,” 
the  fact  remains  that  the  history  of  the  evolution 
of  this  familiar  animal  is  so  extensively  and  so 
completely  known  that  it  illustrates  perhaps  more 
clearly  than  any  other  case  that  may  be  cited  the 
tvpe  of  facts  needed  to  set  forth  this  special  line 

[38] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 

of  evidence.  Briefly  and  only  in  outline  this  his¬ 
tory  is  as  follows: 

The  horse  originated  in  North  America  in  Eo¬ 
cene  times,  with  Eohippus ,  a  graceful  little  crea¬ 
ture  about  a  foot  high  at  the  withers,  with  arched 
back,  short  head  and  neck,  with  limbs  of  moderate 
length  bearing  four  complete  toes  on  the  front 
foot,  and  three  on  the  hind  foot,  though  with  a 
small  remnant  of  the  fourth  and,  in  at  least  one 
specimen,  a  tiny  vestige  of  the  fifth  toe  is  also 
present.  Orohippus  exhibits  an  advance  in  the  loss 
of  even  the  remnant  of  the  fourth  toe,  in  the  short¬ 
ening  of  the  outer  finger  of  the  hand,  besides  the 
development  of  certain  complexities  in  its  molar 
teeth.  It  was  thirteen  and  one-half  inches  high. 
In  the  Upper  Eocene,  Epihippus  occurred,  some¬ 
what  larger  than  Orohippus ,  still  with  four  fin¬ 
gers  and  three  toes  on  each  hand  and  foot  re¬ 
spectively,  but  the  weight  was  borne  more  on  the 
middle  fingers  and  toes,  which  were  slightly  larger 
than  the  others.  In  the  Oligocene  we  find  first 
Mesohippus,  about  the  size  of  a  coyote,  with  only 
three  functional  digits  on  each  foot,  though  the 
middle  one  in  every  case  was  much  larger  than 
the  lateral  ones  and  bore  much  more  of  the  crea¬ 
ture’s  weight.  Several  species  are  known,  of  which 
Mesoliippus  bairdi  was  about  eighteen  inches  high, 
while  Mesohippus  intermedins  reached  a  height 
of  two  feet.  The  teeth  were  more  complex  than  in 
the  preceding  forms.  Mesohippus  of  the  Lower 
and  Middle  Oligocene  was  replaced  by  Miohip - 
pus  of  the  Upper  Oligocene.  In  the  Miocene, 

[39] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 


Hypohippus  attained  a  height  of  forty  inches, 
with  three-toed  feet  in  which  the  middle  toes  were 
much  the  largest.  .Mery  chip  pus,  though  still  three¬ 
toed,  had  the  middle  toes  so  much  developed  that 
the  lateral  ones  never  touched  the  ground ;  its  milk 
teeth  were  short  crowned  and  had  little  or  no  ce¬ 
ment,  like  the  permanent  teeth  of  its  predecessors, 
but  its  permanent  teeth  were  long-crowned  and 
fully  cemented,  forming  a  transition  to  the  con¬ 
dition  of  the  teeth  in  more  modern  horses.  In  the 
Upper  Miocene  and  Pliocene  occurred  Protohip - 
pus  in  which  both  the  milk  teeth  and  the  perma¬ 
nent  teeth  were  moderately  long-crowned  and  ce¬ 
mented,  though  the  feet  were  still  three-toed. 
Pliohippus  was  a  stockier  animal,  about  ten  hands 
high,  with  more  nearly  the  build  of  modern  horses, 

and  with  the  toes  reduced  to  only  one  on  each 

* 

foot.  It  was  the  first  one-toed  horse.  The  modern 
horse,  E quits,  first  appeared  in  the  Upper  Pliocene 
and  represents  the  culmination  of  the  line.  Some 
species  in  the  Pleistocene  attained  a  height  of 
about  fifteen  hands  and  had  somewhat  the  pro¬ 
portions  of  a  western  broncho.  At  the  present 
time  there  is  but  one  species  of  true  wild  horse,  the 
Prej  valski  horse  or  tarpan  of  central  Asia,  though 
at  least  three  other  types  of  true  horses  are  repre¬ 
sented  among  our  domesticated  breeds.  Near  the 
true  horses,  but  specifically  distinct  from  them, 
are  the  the  kiang  of  Mongolia  and  Turkestan,  the 
zebras  of  Africa,  and  the  ass,  a  native  of  Africa 
but  domesticated  and  distributed  well  over  the 
earth. 


[40] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 

This  brief  outline  is  perhaps  enough  to  indicate 
how  complete  is  the  geological  history  of  the  de¬ 
velopment  of  this  well  known  animal  from  more 
primitive  ancestors.  Each  step  in  the  history  illus¬ 
trated  by  the  succession  of  forms  mentioned,  cor- 
responds  exactly  with  the  succession  of  geological 
strata  from  the  oldest  Eocene  to  the  present.  One 
can  hardly  look  upon  the  splendid  display  of  these 
fossil  horses  in  the  American  Museum  of  Natural 
History,  in  New  York,  or  at  Yale  and  elsewhere, 
without  being  convinced  that  he  has  spread  out 
before  his  eyes  the  veritable  story  of  the  evolu¬ 
tionary  development  of  these  animals  through  the 
millions  of  years  which  elapsed  between  E  old  p  pus 
and  the  modern  E quus  caballus.  Every  link  in  the 
chain  is  strong  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  evolu¬ 
tionary  hypothesis;  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  evi¬ 
dence  anywhere  in  the  whole  series  in  favor  of  the 
hypothesis  of  special  creation.  Did  this  case  stand 
alone,  the  evidence  would  be  very  strong,  but 
when  one  considers  that  this  same  sort  of  evidence 
is  furnished  by  several  other  families  of  mammals, 
by  reptiles,  and  fishes,  by  the  nautiloids  among 
the  molluscs,  and  other  invertebrates,  the  signifi¬ 
cance  seems  overwhelming. 

The  evidence  in  favor  of  the  evolutionary  by- 
pothesis  derived  from  a  consideration  of  the  geo¬ 
graphical  distribution  of  animals  and  plants  is  in 
its  way  also  quite  convincing.  Only  a  few  of  the 
facts  can  be  set  forth  here,  though  the  interested 
reader  will  find  several  volumes  devoted  to  the 
subject  by  Wallace,  Beddard,  Gadow,  and  other 

[41] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

well-known  and  capable  zoologists.  It  was  obser¬ 
vations  in  this  field  which  perhaps  more  than  any 
other  first  converted  Darwin  from  a  belief  in  spe¬ 
cial  creation  to  an  advocacy  of  the  evolutionary 
hypothesis.  A  few  paragraphs  selected  from  the 
“Origin  of  Species”  (p.  360)  will  set  forth  the 
facts  in  summary  form: 

“If  the  difficulties  be  not  insuperable  in  admit¬ 
ting  that  in  the  long  course  of  time  all  the  indi¬ 
viduals  of  the  same  species,  and  likewise  of  the 
several  species  belonging  to  the  same  genus,  have 
proceeded  from  some  one  source;  then  all  the 
grand  leading  facts  of  geographical  distribution 
are  explicable  on  the  theory  of  migration,  togeth¬ 
er  with  subsequent  modification  and  the  multipli¬ 
cation  of  new  forms.  We  can  thus  understand  the 
high  importance  of  barriers,  whether  of  land  or 
water,  in  not  only  separating,  but  in  apparently 
forming  the  several  zoological  and  botanical  prov¬ 
inces.  We  can  thus  understand  the  concentration 
of  related  species  within  the  same  areas,  and  how 
it  is  that  under  different  latitudes,  for  instance  in 
South  America,  the  inhabitants  of  the  plains  and 
mountains,  of  the  forests,  marshes,  and  deserts, 
are  linked  together  in  so  mysterious  a  manner, 
and  likewise  linked  to  the  extinct  beings  which 
formerly  inhabited  the  same  continent.  Bearing 
in  mind  that  the  mutual  relation  of  organism  to 
organism  is  of  the  highest  importance,  we  can  see 
why  two  areas  having  nearly  the  same  physical 
conditions  should  often  be  inhabited  by  very  dif¬ 
ferent  forms  of  life ;  for  according  to  the  length  of 

[42] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 

time  which  has  elapsed  since  the  colonists  entered 
one  of  the  regions,  or  both;  according  to  the  na¬ 
ture  of  the  communication  which  allowed  certain 
forms  and  not  others  to  enter,  either  in  greater  or 
lesser  numbers;  according  or  not,  as  those  which 
entered  happened  to  come  into  more  or  less  direct 
competition  with  each  other  and  with  the  abo¬ 
rigines;  and  according  as  the  immigrants  were 
capable  of  varying  more  or  less  rapidly,  there 
would  ensue  in  the  two  or  more  regions,  inde¬ 
pendently  of  their  physical  conditions,  infinitely 
diversified  conditions  of  life, — and  there  would 
be  an  almost  endless  amount  of  organic  action  and 
reaction, — and  we  should  find  some  groups  of  be¬ 
ings  greatly,  and  some  only  slightly  modified, — 
some  developed  in  great  force,  some  existing  in 
scantv  numbers — and  this  we  do  find  in  the  sev- 
eral  great  geographical  provinces  of  the  world. 

“On  these  same  principles  we  can  understand, 
as  I  have  endeavored  to  show,  why  oceanic  islands 
should  have  few  inhabitants,  but  that  of  these,  a 
large  proportion  should  be  endemic  or  peculiar; 
and  why,  in  relation  to  the  means  of  migration, 
one  group  of  beings  should  have  all  its  species 
peculiar,  and  another  group,  even  within  the  same 
class,  should  have  all  its  species  the  same  with 
those  in  an  adjoining  quarter  of  the  world.  We 
can  see  why  whole  groups  of  organisms,  as  ba- 
traehians  and  terrestrial  mammals,  should  he  ab¬ 
sent  from  oceanic  islands,  whilst  the  most  isolated 
islands  should  possess  their  own  peculiar  species  of 
aerial  mammals  or  bats.  We  can  see  why  in  islands 

[43] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

there  should  be  some  relation  between  the  presence 
of  mammals,  in  a  more  or  less  modified  condition, 
and  the  depth  of  the  sea  between  such  islands  and 
the  mainland.  We  can  clearly  see  why  all  the  in¬ 
habitants  of  an  archipelago,  though  specifically 
distinct  on  the  several  islets,  should  be  closely  re¬ 
lated  to  each  other ;  and  should  likewise  be  related, 
but  less  closely,  to  those  of  the  nearest  continent, 
or  other  source  whence  immigrants  might  have 
been  derived.  We  can  see  why,  if  there  exist  very 
closely  allied  or  representative  species  in  two  areas, 
however  distant  from  each  other,  some  identical 
species  will  almost  always  there  be  found.  .  .  . 

“There  is  a  striking  parallelism  in  the  laws  of 
life  throughout  time  and  space;  the  laws  govern¬ 
ing  the  succession  of  forms  in  past  times  being 
nearly  the  same  with  those  governing  at  the  pres¬ 
ent  time  the  differences  in  different  areas.  We  see 
this  in  many  facts.  The  endurance  of  each  species 
and  group  of  species  is  continuous  in  time;  .  .  . 
so  in  space,  it  certainly  is  the  general  rule  that  the 
area  inhabited  by  a  single  species,  or  by  a  group 
of  species,  is  continuous,  and  the  exceptions,  which 
are  not  rare,  may,  as  I  have  attempted  to  show,  be 
accounted  for  by  the  former  migrations  under  dif¬ 
ferent  circumstances,  or  through  occasional  means 
of  transport,  or  by  the  species  having  become  ex¬ 
tinct  in  the  intermediate  tracts.  Both  in  time  and 
space,  species  and  groups  of  species  have  their 
points  of  maximum  development.  Groups  of  spe¬ 
cies,  living  during  the  same  period  of  time,  or  liv¬ 
ing  within  the  same  area,  are  often  characterized 

[  44  ] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 

by  trifling  features  in  common,  as  of  sculpture  or 
color.  In  looking  to  the  long  succession  of  past 
ages,  as  in  looking  to  distant  provinces  through¬ 
out  the  world,  we  find  that  species  in  certain 
classes  differ  little  from  each  other,  whilst  those  in 
another  class,  or  only  in  a  different  section  of  the 
same  order,  differ  greatly  from  each  other.  In 
both  time  and  space  the  lowly  organized  members 
of  each  class  generally  change  less  than  the  highly 
organized ;  but  there  are  in  both  cases  marked  ex¬ 
ceptions  to  the  rule.  According  to  our  theory, 
these  several  relations  throughout  time  and  space 
are  intelligible ;  for  whether  we  look  to  the  allied 
forms  of  life  which  have  changed  during  succes¬ 
sive  ages,  or  to  those  which  have  changed  after 
having  migrated  into  distant  quarters,  in  both 
cases  they  are  connected  by  the  same  bond  of  or¬ 
dinary  generation ;  in  both  cases  the  laws  of  varia¬ 
tion  have  been  the  same,  and  modifications  have 
been  accumulated  by  the  same  means.  .  .  .” 

For  many  centuries  man  was  engaged  in  the 
domestication  of  various  wild  species  of  animals 
and  plants.  At  first  this  process  was  doubtless 
more  or  less  without  thought  or  foresight,  quite 
accidental  as  it  were.  Later  man  consciously  se¬ 
lected  such  variations  as  he  for  any  reason  fancied 
among  those  which  appeared  from  time  to  time  in 

the  already  domesticated  forms  and  still  later  he 
%/ 

manipulated  his  products  experimentally  in  order 
to  bring  about  desired  improvements.  To  such  an 
extent  has  this  been  done  that  it  is  rarely  possible 
at  this  time  to  determine  exactly  what  wild  species 

[45] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

was  the  original  progenitor  of  the  domesticated 
forms.  This  modification  bv  man  has  sometimes 
resulted  in  the  production  of  several  forms  from 
one  original  source  as  is  shown  in  the  cabbage, 
where  starting  with  the  common  wild  cabbage  of 
the  Mediterranean  shore,  there  have  been  pro¬ 
duced  such  widely  different  things  as  the  various 
kinds  of  cultivated  cabbage,  the  cauliflower,  also 
in  several  varieties,  the  broccoli,  the  kohl-rabi  of 
at  least  three  distinct  sorts,  the  brussels  sprouts, 
kale,  and  perhaps  others.  The  Indian  love-apple 
has  been  developed  almost  within  the  memory  of 
people  still  living  into  the  manifold  varieties  of 
the  cultivated  tomato,  some  of  which  are  so  well 
marked  and  breed  so  true  to  type  that  no  botanist 
finding  them  in  a  state  of  nature  would  hesitate 
to  call  them  distinct  species.  Dogs,  cats,  horses, 
cattle,  sheep,  hogs,  chickens,  turkeys,  ducks,  and 
geese,  all  these  and  others,  but  exemplify  the  same 
condition.  For  many  years  horticulturalists  and 
animal  breeders  did  not  realize  what  they  were 
really  doing,  but  now  that  the  better  informed  of 
them  understand  that  they  are  engaged  in  the  evo¬ 
lution  of  the  forms  with  which  they  are  dealing, 
the  laws  of  variation  and  heredity  are  being  con¬ 
sciously  applied.  Hence  a  Burbank  can  in  a  few 
years  produce  almost  any  variety  he  desires,  even 
to  the  production  of  Indian  corn  or  maize  from 
the  teosinte  of  our  southern  hay-fields. 

Taking  the  hint  from  the  production  of  varie¬ 
ties  of  cultivated  plants  or  domesticated  animals, 
students  of  evolution  have  for  the  past  twenty 

[46] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 

years,  largely  under  the  influence  of  the  Dutch 
botanist,  De  Vries,  definitely  undertaken  the  ex¬ 
perimental  production  of  new  species.  The  results 
are  so  numerous  and  so  conclusive  that  it  is  no 
exaggeration  to  say  that  now  we  have  seen  literal¬ 
ly  hundreds  of  new  species  produced  by  experi¬ 
ment  either  in  laboratory  or  field.  It  is  no  longer 
possible  to  assert  with  truth  that  no  man  has  seen 
one  species  changed  into  another.  This  is  evolu¬ 
tion;  there  is  involved  no  hypothesis  or  theory,  in 
the  ordinary  acceptation  of  those  terms.  It  is  the 
demonstration  of  a  fact  which  can  no  longer  be 
successfully  gainsaid. 

A  somewhat  different  line  of  experiment  has 
within  the  past  few  years  most  unexpectedly  sup¬ 
plied  evidence  for  the  evolutionary  hypothesis  of 
a  most  convincing  sort.  This  is  the  work  of  Dr. 
George  H.  F.  Nuttall,  of  the  University  of  Cam¬ 
bridge,  on  “Blood  Immunity  and  Blood  Relation¬ 
ship,”  published  in  1904,  and  that  of  Professors 
Reichert  and  Brown,  of  the  University  of  Penn¬ 
sylvania,  published  in  1909,  on  “The  Differentia¬ 
tion  and  Specificity  of  Corresponding  Proteins 
and  Other  Vital  Substances  in  Relation  to  Bio¬ 
logical  Classification  and  Organic  Evolution.” 

Xuttall’s  technique  and  results  are  as  follows: 
A  rabbit  is  given  introperitoneal  injections  of  5-10 
cc.  of  defibrinated  human  blood  twice  weekly  for 
about  six  weeks,  then  bled  a  week  after  the  last 
injection,  and  the  clear  serum  separated  from  the 
clotted  blood.  We  thus  obtain  a  reagent  which 
when  added  to  clear  human  blood  serum  imme- 

[47] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

diately  gives  a  copious  white  precipitate.  If  the 
rabbit  serum  be  diluted  1:50  or  1:100  as  a  stan¬ 
dard,  so  that  it  shall  always  be  present  in  uniform 
quantity  in  all  the  tests  made,  and  the  serums  to 
be  tested  for  blood  relationship  given  various  di¬ 
lutions— 1  :  100, 1 : 1,000, 1 : 10,000, 1 : 100,000,  etc. 
— and  the  mixtures  of  the  test  (rabbit)  serum  and 
the  serum  to  be  tested  allowed  to  stand  for,  say, 
thirty  minutes  as  a  fixed  period,  it  will  be  found 
that  the  reaction  of  precipitation  is  specific  in  that 
closely  related  bloods  precipitate  in  greater  dilu¬ 
tion  and  in  larger  quantity  than  bloods  more  dis¬ 
tantly  related.  Thus,  human  serum  may  be  pre¬ 
cipitated  with  anti-human  (rabbit)  serum  in  dilu¬ 
tions  even  reaching  1:100,000;  the  blood  of  an¬ 
thropoid  (manlike)  apes  in  slightly  less  dilutions; 
those  of  other  apes  in  decidedly  less  dilutions; 
those  of  lower  monkeys  in  less  and  less  dilution 
the  further  they  are  zoologically  removed  from 
man;  those  of  lower  mammals  only  in  the  con- 
centrated  form,  if  at  all;  and  the  bloods  of  still 
lower  vertebrates  and  invertebrates  not  at  all.1 

Professor  William  B.  Scott,  of  Princeton  Uni¬ 
versity  (“The  Theory  of  Evolution,”  p.  78)  notes 
that  “anti-pig  serum  gives  maximum  reactions 
only  with  the  bloods  of  other  species  of  the  same 
family,  moderate  reactions  with  those  of  rumi- 
nants  and  camels,  and  moderate  or  slight  reac¬ 
tions  with  those  of  whales.  Anti-llama  serum  gives 
a  moderate  reaction  with  the  blood  of  the  camel, 

i  Slightly  modified  from  the  account  given  by  McFarland,  in  his 
“Biology,  General  and  Medical.” 

[  48  ] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 

and  the  close  relationship  between  the  deer-family 
and  the  great  host  of  antelopes,  sheep,  goats  and 
oxen  is  clearly  demonstrated.  Strong  anti-turtle 
serum  gives  maximum  reactions  only  with  the 
bloods  of  turtles  and  crocodiles,  with  those  of  liz¬ 
ards  and  snakes  the  results  are  almost  negative. 
With  the  egg-albumins  of  reptiles  and  birds  a 
moderate  reaction  is  given. 

“These  experiments  indicate  that  there  is  a 
close  relationship  between  lizards  and  snakes,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  turtles  and  crocodiles,  on  the 
other.  They  further  indicate  that  birds  are  more 
nearly  allied  with  the  turtle-crocodile  series  than 
with  the  lizard-snake  series,  results  for  which  pale¬ 
ontological  studies  had  already  prepared  us.” 

The  work  of  Reichert  and  Brown  had  to  do  with 
the  oxy-hemoglobin  crystals  of  the  blood.  Accord- 
ing  to  them,  “it  has  been  conclusively  shown  not 
only  that  corresponding  hemoglobins  are  not  iden¬ 
tical,  but  also  that  their  peculiarities  are  of  a  posi¬ 
tive  generic  specificity.  .  .  .  Moreover,  it  has  been 
found  that  one  can  with  some  certainty  predict  by 
these  peculiarities,  without  previous  knowledge  of 
the  species  from  which  the  hemoglobins  were  de¬ 
rived,  whether  or  not  interbreeding  is  probable  or 
possible,  and  also  certain  characteristics  of  habit, 
etc.  .  .  .  Xo  difficulty  was  experienced  in  fore¬ 
casting  similarities  and  dissimilarities  of  habit  in 
Sciuridae  (squirrels),  Muridae  (mice  and  rats), 
Felidae  (cats) ,  etc.,  not  because  it  is  per  se  the  de¬ 
termining  factor,  but  because  ...  it  serves  as  an 
index  (gross  though  it  be,  with  our  present  very 

[49] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

limited  knowledge)  of  those  physico-chemical 
properties  which  serve  directly  or  indirectly  to  dif¬ 
ferentiate  genera,  species,  and  individuals.” 

But  the  clinching  argument  for  the  experienced 
biologist  has  not  yet  been  mentioned.  It  is  the  fact 
that  he  is  constantly  brought  into  contact  with 
phenomena,  oftentimes  of  little  importance  in 
themselves,  all  of  which  seem  to  point  in  the  same 
direction,  i.e.,  toward  the  evolutionary  hypothe¬ 
sis.  it  is  the  cumulative  effect  of  these  little 
things  which  finally  decides  the  matter  for  him. 
For  example,  some  years  ago  the  author  was  en¬ 
gaged  in  a  study  of  the  development  of  the  eggs 
in  the  Cuban  blind-fishes.  These  interesting  fishes, 
two  genera  of  them,  are  not  only  blind,  but  they 
are  the  only  freshwater  representatives  of  a  fami¬ 
ly  of  fishes  the  other  members  (genera)  of  which 
live  in  the  sea.  Moreover,  they  do  not  lay  their 
eggs,  as  ordinary  fishes  do,  but  bring  forth  their 
young  alive.  These  young,  two  to  fifteen  in  a  sea¬ 
son,  are  fully  formed  and  large  in  size,  being  at 
birth  sometimes  nearly  one-third  the  length  of  the 
mother  and  have  well  developed  eyes.  This  sug¬ 
gests  at  once  that  the  ancestors  of  these  fishes  had 
sight  like  ordinary  species  today.  But  in  studying 
the  development  of  their  eggs,  it  was  found  that 
these  arise  within  the  ovaries  of  the  mother  fish  in 
groups  of  hundreds  or  even  thousands  each. 
Moreover,  each  ovary  usually  contains  a  dozen  or 
more  of  these  “nests”  of  young  eggs,  so  that  at 
least  a  hundred  thousand  young  eggs  begin  to  de¬ 
velop  in  each  female.  Yet  very  soon  in  the  course 

[50] 


The  Fact  of  Evolution 


of  this  process  one  egg,  and  usually  only  one,  in 
each  ‘‘nest”  begins  to  forge  ahead  of  the  others, 
soon  far  outstripping  them  in  size,  and  then,  to 
cap  the  climax,  this  precocious  egg  literally  pro¬ 
ceeds  to  eat  up  all  the  other  eggs  in  its  own  “nest!” 
The  final  result  is  the  birth  of  only  a  few  young, 
alive  and  far  on  their  road  to  maturity,  instead  of 
the  early  deposition  of  hundreds  or  thousands  of 
eggs  as  in  the  case  of  more  familiar  species. 

Now,  such  facts  as  these  have  but  one  plausible 
explanation.  These  blind,  viviparous,  fresh-water 
Cuban  fishes  must  have  descended  with  modifica¬ 
tion  from  seeing,  egg-laying,  marine  forms.  In 
other  words,  the  species  as  found  today  must  have 
been  produced  by  a  process  of  evolution  from  an 
ancestral  form  quite  different  from  them  in  struc¬ 
ture,  mode  of  life,  and  manner  of  reproduction. 
Evolution  is  the  only  satisfactory  answer  to  the 
questions  raised  by  these  phenomena.  Such  ob¬ 
servations  are  far  from  uncommon;  in  fact,  they 
occur  with  such  frequency  in  the  experience  of 
every  biologist,  that  the  fact  of  evolution  becomes 
an  inescapable  conclusion.  Hence  practically 
every  biologist  who  has  made  any  important  in¬ 
vestigations  in  his  field  is  a  convinced  evolutionist. 


CHAPTER  IV 


HAS  MAN  EVOLVED  <? 


There  are  those  who  are  willing  to  admit  the 
possibility  of,  or  even  to  accept,  the  evolutionary 
hypothesis  when  applied  to  plants  and  the  “lower” 
animals,  who  nevertheless,  for  one  reason  or  an¬ 
other,  reject  its  application  to  man.  It  becomes 
necessary,  therefore,  to  consider  as  briefly,  but  as 
fairly  as  possible,  the  evidence  of  man’s  ascent 
from  lowlier  forms.  The  question  whether,  if  one 
admits  the  evolution  of  man’s  bodily  structures, 
his  mind  or  soul  may  not  have  had  a  special  origin, 
will  be  reserved  for  a  later  chapter. 

The  evidence  relied  upon  to  show  that  the  hu¬ 
man  species  has  had  an  evolutionary  history  is  the 
same  in  kind  as  that  set  forth  in  the  preceding 
chapter  for  evolution  in  general.  Thus  the  human 
species  is  not  a  homogeneous  one,  but  is  composed 
of  several  well  marked  varieties,  so  distinct  that 
there  is  little  doubt  but  that  in  any  other  form 
than  man  they  would  be  ranked  as  legitimate 
species.  In  fact  some  anthropologists  have  so  re¬ 
garded  them.  These  varieties  or  races,  moreover, 
comprise  literally  hundreds  of  sub-varieties,  each 
distinguished  by  a  definite  combination  of  physi¬ 
cal  characteristics.  On  the  basis  of  the  origin  of 

[53] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 


man  by  special  creation  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
species  has  undergone  a  most  remarkable  amount 
of  variation.  The  opponent  of  the  doctrine  of  evo¬ 
lution  admits  this,  but  falls  back  upon  the  argu¬ 
ment  that  these  races  are  not  true  species  because 
they  are  fertile  inter  se.  It  has  long  been  main¬ 
tained  that  the  surest  mark  of  true  species  is  their 
inability  to  hybridize,  or  if  hybrid  offspring  are 
produced,  that  the  latter  are  sterile.  As  one  ex¬ 
treme  opponent  has  strikingly  expressed  the  idea : 
“The  stubborn  mule  still  blocks  the  way  of  evolu¬ 
tion.” 

That  many  or  even  most  true  species  in  nature 
are  sterile  inter  se  may  be  true,  but  the  fact  re¬ 
mains  that  there  are  many  which  are  not.  There 
are  two  well  marked  species  of  Old  World  camels, 
the  African  dromedary,  or  one-humped  camel, 
and  the  Asiatic  or  Bactrian  camel  with  two 
humps,  which  despite  their  distinctness  have  bred 
together.  In  South  America,  the  llama  has  been 
bred  with  the  very  distinct  alpaca  and  the  off¬ 
spring  are  fertile.  Among  the  deer  several  species 
are  known  to  interbreed ;  while  among  the  Bovidse, 
or  cattle  in  the  broadest  sense,  the  zebu  ( Bos  in- 
dicus) ,  or  sacred  humped  ox  of  India,  has  been 
crossed  with  the  gayal  ( Bibos  frontalis ),  a  true 
buffalo.  The  female  offspring  of  such  a  cross  has 
even  been  mated  with  the  American  bison  ( Bison 
americanns)  and  produced  fertile  progeny.  Here 
are  involved,  not  only  three  distinct  species ,  but 
even  three  distinct  genera.  Several  species  of  our 
native  birds  hybridize  readily  in  a  state  of  nature, 

[  54  ] 


Has  Man  Eyolyed? 


for  example,  the  two  species  of  flicker,  Colaptes 
auratus  or  yellow  shafted  woodpecker,  and  Co¬ 
laptes  cafer  or  red  shafted  woodpecker.  Some 
years  ago  the  author  instructed  his  taxidermist  to 
collect  a  number  of  flickers  for  mounting  in  a 
group.  The  first  dozen  specimens  secured  were  all 
hybrids  and  showed  almost  a  dozen  degrees  of  in¬ 
termediate  conditions  between  the  two  species. 

It  is  also  well  known  that  when  the  American 
bison  is  crossed  with  the  domestic  cow,  the  off¬ 
spring  are  fertile  if  of  the  female  sex,  but  sterile 
if  male.  If  sterility  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  criterion 
of  specific  distinctness,  and  fertility  as  a  mark  of 
“mere  varieties,”  are  we  therefore  to  conclude  in 
this  case  (which  is  by  no  means  unique)  that  do¬ 
mestic  cattle  and  the  bison  are  merely  varieties 
in  the  female  line ,  but  distinct  species  in  the  male ? 
Two  species  of  toads  are  known  in  the  case  of 
which  the  male  of  one  is  fertile  only  with  females 
of  its  own  species,  while  the  male  of  the  other  is 
fertile  with  both.  Do  these  males  belong  to  two 
distinct  species,  while  the  females  constitute  mere¬ 
ly  two  varieties?  Such  conclusions  are  such  ob- 
%> 

vious  absurdities  that  they  may  be  left  to  call  forth 

their  own  answers.  The  truth  is  that  sterility  is  not 

%/ 

always  a  condition  that  obtains  between  true 
species  and  fertility  between  mere  varieties. 

So  one  is  not  justified  in  asserting  that  man 
constitutes  only  a  single  species  merely  on  the 
ground  that  the  various  so-called  races  are  inter- 
fertile.  Moreover,  the  degree  of  fertility  among 
these  races  varies  greatly  in  different  cases. 

[5.5] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

But  for  our  purpose  it  matters  little  whether 
man  be  considered  as  constituting  one  species 
with  many  varieties,  or  several;  the  fact  remains 
that  these  different  forms  are  remarkably  con¬ 
stant  when  prevented  from  intercrossing,  and  that 
they  could  only  have  arisen  by  descent  with  modi¬ 
fication  from  a  common  source  of  mankind. 

The  study  of  comparative  anatomy  shows  that 
man  has  exactly  the  same  kind  of  structural  re¬ 
semblances  to  lower  forms  that  the  latter  display 
to  one  another.  The  skeleton  of  man  and  that  of  an 
anthropoid  ape,  such  as  the  gorilla,  chimpanzee, 
or  orang-utan,  is  bone  for  bone  the  same.  The  dif¬ 
ferences  are  such  as  relate  to  the  peculiar  adapta¬ 
tions  of  each  species.  Thus  man  is  a  ground-living 
form,  while  these  apes  are  adapted  to  live  in  trees. 
So  while  the  foot  of  man  has  the  same  bones  and 
muscles,  the  same  nerves  and  blood-vessels  as  has 
their  foot,  it  is  modified  in  the  latter  case  by  such 
minor  characters  as  the  setting  of  the  big  toe  at  an 
angle  to  the  others  in  order  that  it  may  be  opposed 
to  them  and  thus  be  a  more  skilful  organ  for 
climbing.  In  man,  the  big  toe  lies  close  to  and 
parallel  to  the  other  toes,  and  moreover  is  so 
placed  that  the  principal  axis  of  the  foot  passes 
through  it.  This  is  an  adaptation  to  terrestrial 
locomotion  in  which  man  excels  all  the  apes.  If  it 
be  objected  that  the  gorilla  and  chimpanzee  have 
thirteen  pairs  of  ribs,  while  man  has  only  twelve, 
it  may  be  answered  that  the  orang  also  has  but 
twelve,  while  in  man  it  is  not  unusual  to  find  thir¬ 
teen  pairs  present  in  cadavers  dissected  in  ana- 

[56] 


Has  Man  Eyolyed? 

tomical  laboratories.  And  so  the  story  may  be  in¬ 
definitely  prolonged.  The  teeth,  the  head,  the  up¬ 
per  extremities,  the  viscera,  all  tell  the  same  thing. 
The  greatest  differences  lie  in  the  size  of  the  brain, 
but  here  the  distinction  is  one  apparently  of  de¬ 
gree,  for  the  same  structural  parts  are  found  in 
all.  Thus  as  to  the  convolutions,  the  brains  of 
apes  exhibit  every  stage  of  progress,  from  the 
almost  smooth  brain  of  the  marmoset  to  the  orang 
and  the  chimpanzee,  which  fall  but  little  below 
man.  And  it  is  most  remarkable  that,  as  soon  as 
all  the  principal  furrows  appear,  the  pattern  ac¬ 
cording  to  which  they  are  arranged  is  identical 
with  that  of  the  corresponding  furrows  on  the 
brain  of  man.  The  surface  of  the  brain  of  a  mon¬ 
key  exhibits  a  sort  of  skeleton  map  of  man’s  and 
in  the  manlike  apes  the  details  become  more  and 
more  filled  in,  until  it  is  only  in  minor  characters, 
such  as  the  greater  excavation  of  the  anterior 
lobes,  the  constant  presence  of  fissures  usually  ab¬ 
sent  in  man,  and  the  different  disposition  and  pro¬ 
portions  of  some  convolutions,  that  the  chimpan¬ 
zee’s  or  the  orang’s  brain  can  be  structurally  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  man's.  So  far  as  cerebral  struc¬ 
ture  goes,  therefore,  it  is  clear  that  man  differs 
less  from  the  chimpanzee  or  the  orang  than  these 
do  even  from  the  monkeys,  and  that  the  differ- 
ences  between  the  brains  of  the  chimpanzee  and 
of  man  are  almost  insignificant,  when  compared 
with  those  between  the  chimpanzee  brain  and  that 
of  a  lemur,  among  the  lowest  of  the  Primates. 

It  must  not  be  oyerlooked,  however,  that  there 

[57] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

is  a  very  striking  difference  in  the  absolute  mass 
and  weight  between  the  lowest  adult  human  brain 
and  that  of  the  highest  ape — a  difference  which  is 
all  the  more  remarkable  when  we  recollect  that  a 
full-grown  gorilla  is  nearly  twice  as  heavy  as  the 
average  man.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  a 
healthy  human  adult  brain  ever  weighs  less  than 
31  ounces,  or  that  the  heaviest  gorilla  brain  ex¬ 
ceeds  20  ounces.  This  is  a  very  noteworthy  cir¬ 
cumstance,  but  it  has  little  classificatory  value  for 
the  simple  reason  that  the  difference  in  weight  of 
brain  between  the  highest  and  lowest  men  is  far 
greater,  both  relatively  and  absolutely  than  that 
between  the  lowest  man  and  the  highest  ape.  The 
latter  is  represented  by  only  about  11  ounces  of 
cerebral  matter  absolutely,  or  by  31 :  20  relatively; 
while  the  former  is  represented  by  34  ounces  abso¬ 
lutely,  or  by  65:31  relatively.  Whatever  system 
of  organs  be  studied,  the  comparison  of  their 
modifications  in  the  ape  series  leads  to  one  and  the 
same  result — that  the  structural  differences  which 
separate  man  from  the  highest  apes  are  not  so 
great  as  those  which  separate  the  latter  from  the 
lower  apes.  These  are  facts  that  cannot  be  dis¬ 
puted. 

But  if  man  be  separated  by  no  greater  struc¬ 
tural  barrier  from  the  “lower”  animals  than  they 
are  from  one  another — then  it  would  seem  to  fol¬ 
low  that  if  any  process  of  physical  causation  can 
be  discovered  by  which  the  species,  genera,  and 
families  of  ordinary  animals  have  been  produced, 
that  process  of  causation  must  be  sufficient  to  ac- 

[38] 


Has  Man  Evolved? 


count  for  the  origin  of  man.  In  other  words,  if  the 
marmosets  have  arisen  by  gradual  modification 
of  the  ordinary  American  monkeys,  or  if  both 
these  groups  are  modified  ramifications  of  a  prim¬ 
itive  stock — then,  there  can  he  no  reasonable 
ground  for  doubting  that  man  originated  either 
by  the  gradual  modification  of  a  man-like  ape,  or 
as  a  branch  of  the  same  primitive  stock  as  those 
apes.1 

Embryology  adds  its  testimony  in  corrobora- 
tion  of  this  view,  revealing  that  the  human  em¬ 
bryo  passes  through  stages  exactly  comparable 
to  those  exhibited  by  the  embryos  of  lower  forms. 
Thus  at  one  stage  the  human  embryo  has  gill-slits 
and  aortic  arches,  not  to  speak  of  a  cartilaginous 
framework,  in  the  sides  of  its  neck  like  those  of  a 
fish;  its  skeletal  framework  is  at  first  like  that  of 
the  lancelet  (amphiooous) — lower  than  any  famil¬ 
iar  type  of  fish — then  fishlike,  then  decidedly  rep¬ 
tilian,  then  gradually  step  by  step  it  parallels  the 
other  mammals  until  finally  it  emerges  as  a  pri¬ 
mate,  and  only  at  last  becomes  distinctly  human. 

That  at  one  time  the  human  embryo  has  a  well- 

«/ 

marked  tail  and  later  the  fetus  is  entirely  covered 
with  hair  save  on  the  palms  of  the  hands  and  the 
soles  of  the  feet,  are  facts  familiar  to  students  of 
human  embryology.  In  a  very  early  stage  the 
waste  product  s  of  the  human  embryo  are  taken  care 
of  by  a  primitive  sort  of  “kidney”  ( pronephros ) 


1  The  last  three  paragraphs  are  slightly  modified  from  Huxley’s 
account  in  his  “Man’s  Place  in  Nature.” 


[59] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 


located  in  the  neck  region;  later  this  is  replaced 
by  a  second  “kidney”  (mesonephros) ,  much  more 
extensive  in  size  and  more  complex  in  structure; 
and  finally,  the  true  kidney  ( metanephros )  re¬ 
places  the  second  and  continues  to  function 
throughout  life,  the  first  two  disappearing  alto¬ 
gether  except  for  certain  vestiges  connected  with 
the  reproductive  system,  which  have  no  excretory 
function.  It  is  suggestive  that  the  excretory  ap¬ 
paratus  of  the  lancelet  and  lampreys  consists 
throughout  life  only  of  the  pronephros;  in  the 
fishes  the  mesonephros  also  is  developed,  and  both 
it  and  the  pronephros  are  functional  in  the  adult. 
In  the  Batrachians,  the  pronephros  degenerates 
and  only  the  mesonephros  persists.  In  the  rep¬ 
tiles,  birds,  and  mammals,  as  in  man,  the  pro¬ 
nephros  and  mesonephros  are  transitory  embry¬ 
onic  organs,  replaced  by  the  true  kidneys  ( meta - 
nephroi)  which  function  throughout  life. 

That  the  structure  of  the  entire  human  embryo 
very  closely  resembles  that  of  other  mammalian 
embryos  is  wrell  exemplified  by  experiences  com¬ 
mon  to  many  instructors  in  the  subject,  who  have 
substituted  sections  of  pig,  rabbit,  cat  or  rat  em¬ 
bryos  in  the  laboratory  for  sections  of  human  em¬ 
bryos  of  corresponding  stages  of  development 
without  the  students  being  aware  of  the  exchange ! 
Moreover,  even  an  experienced  embryologist  dare 
not  preserve  a  series  of  mammalian  embryos  with¬ 
out  carefully  labelling  each  at  the  time  it  is  se¬ 
cured,  for  it  is  almost  impossible  to  determine 
whether  a  given  specimen  is  human,  or  pig,  or  cat, 

[60] 


Has  Man  Evolved? 


or  rat,  if  the  labels  be  misplaced  even  on  specimens 
fairly  well  adYanced  in  development.  It  is  bard  to 
see  bow  such  a  close  similarity  can  be  accounted 
for  except  on  the  hypothesis  of  common  descent. 

Physiologically  man’s  closer  resemblance  to  the 
higher  apes  was  mentioned  in  connection  with  the 
account  of  Nuttall’s  investigation  with  the  serum 
test  as  described  in  the  preceding  chapter.  The 
fact  that  the  human  tissues  are  chemically  more 
like  those  of  the  anthropoids  and  less  and  less  like 
those  of  other  mammals  the  farther  removed  the 
latter  are  from  man  zoologically,  amounts  almost 
to  a  demonstration  that  man  must  be  included  in 
the  evolutionary  process.  A  somewhat  related  line 
of  evidence  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  dis¬ 
eases  of  man  are  shared  with  the  apes,  and  even 
more  striking  is  the  fact  that  the  external  para¬ 
sites  (lice)  of  man  are  specifically  and  generically 
more  closely  allied  to  those  of  the  anthropoids 
than  they  are  to  those  of  the  lower  mammals.  In 
short,  the  familiar  “cootie”  tells  the  tale  of  man’s 
animal  derivation. 

The  yet  few  but  increasingly  common  human 
fossils,  as  the  next  chapter  will  relate  at  some 
length,  clearly  tell  of  man’s  gradual  development 
through  the  last  half  million  years  from  a  form 
with  scant  brain  capacity  to  that  of  the  large¬ 
brained  creature  of  today.  Some  of  these  fossils 
are  so  clearly  intermediate  between  man  and  the 
higher  apes  that  it  cannot  even  now  be  definitely 

decided  whether  they  should  be  classed  in  the 

%/ 

human  family  or  with  the  simians;  still  others, 

[61] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

while  human,  are  clearly  generically  distinct  from 
the  genus  Homo. 

These  being,  in  outline,  the  facts  in  the  case,  it 
is  clear  that  the  evolutionary  hypothesis  applies 
to  man  just  as  cogently  as  to  the  lower  animals 
and  plants.  Unless  one  is  prepared  to  reject  the 
evidence  in  toto,  for  the  latter  as  well  as  for  man, 
there  is  no  escape  from  this  conclusion.  One  must 
either  deny  the  force  of  the  argument  altogether 
and  refuse  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  evolution  at 
all,  or  else,  if  convinced  that  the  facts  reveal  the 
evolutionary  history  of  the  lower  animals,  one  is 
logically  compelled  to  accept  them  for  man  also, 
if  one  is  not  to  commit  mental  suicide. 

This  is  not  to  deny  that,  in  spite  of  this  close 
similarity  to  the  animal  in  his  physical  make-up, 
man  stands  far  above  all  other  organisms  in  his 
mental  attainments.  This  is  the  ground  on  which 
the  strongest  arguments  are  based  in  favor  of  the 
view  that  man  is  sui  generis — a  unique  production 
with  no  true  kinship  to  the  forms  below  him  in  the 
animal  scale. 

Only  an  elementary  knowledge  of  biology  is 
necessary  to  show,  upon  careful  analysis,  that  the 
plants  are  characterized  by  their  simple  energy - 
combining  powers.  The  green  plant  works  with 
such  elementarv  substances  as  water,  carbon  di- 
oxide  and  oxygen  from  the  air,  and  nitrates  from 
the  soil,  which,  by  means  of  energy  derived  direct¬ 
ly  from  the  sun’s  rays,  it  combines  into  more  com¬ 
plex,  yet  relatively  simple,  compounds  such  as  the 
starches  and  sugars,  fats  and  proteins,  which  serve 

[  62  ] 


Has  Man  Evolved? 


the  plant  directly  as  food  out  of  which  it  manu¬ 
factures  its  living  substance the  protoplasm  of 
its  cells. 

The  animals  are  not  capable  of  thus  utilizing 
the  simple  inorganic  chemical  compounds  but 
must  have  the  sugars  and  starches,  fats  and  pro¬ 
teins  already  elaborated  by  the  plants.  But  in  ad¬ 
dition  to  this  distinction,  the  lower  animals  j)os- 
sess  a  positive  characteristic  which  sets  them  off  as 
beings  of  a  higher  order  than  the  plants,  namely 
their  space-traversing  power .  Plants  in  general 
are  anchored  to  one  spot ;  they  are  dependent  up¬ 
on  the  contents  of  their  immediate  environment — 
upon  the  soil  in  which  they  are  rooted,  upon  the 
atmosphere  surrounding  their  tops,  upon  the  sup¬ 
ply  of  moisture,  heat  and  light  that  chance  condi¬ 
tions  may  supply  to  them.  If  food  of  any  kind 
fails  in  one  locality,  the  plant  suffers  or  dies,  while 
the  animal  may  migrate  to  another  region,  more 
or  less  remote,  where  the  desired  food  mav  be  ob- 
tained.  This  space-traversing  power  of  the  ani¬ 
mal  is  of  immense  importance  in  the  maintenance 
of  the  species  and,  if  the  doctrine  of  evolution  be 
accepted,  accounts  in  a  large  measure  for  the 
higher  organization  of  the  animal,  an  organization 
involving  the  development  of  a  central  nervous 
system.  The  lowest  of  the  animals  in  which  the 
nervous  system  is  least  developed  display  the  least 
of  this  space-traversing  power  and  live  little  above 
the  plant  plane.  As  one  ascends  higher  in  the  ani¬ 
mal  scale,  the  increasing  development  of  the  ner¬ 
vous  system  is  correlated  with  increasing  power 

[  63  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

of  space-traversion,  until  it  reaches  its  culmina¬ 
tion  in  the  highest  animals. 

Turning  to  man  from  this  point  of  view,  one 
finds  that  in  common  with  the  lower  animals  he  is 
a  space-traversing  organism,  and  like  them  he  is 
dependent  upon  the  lower  organisms  for  his  food. 
But  no  other  animal  has  the  space-traversing 
power  so  well  developed  as  he,  consequently  no 
other  animal  has  so  wide  a  distribution  over  the 
earth,  no  other  animal  can  make  its  home  in  so 
many  different  types  of  environment,  except  some 
few  domesticated  forms  which  are  dependent  up¬ 
on  man  for  their  existence.  Man  lives  from  the 
equator  almost  to  the  poles,  where  variations  in 
temperature  are  extreme;  he  lives  on  the  islands 
of  the  sea  no  less  than  upon  the  continents ;  fertile 
plain  and  desert,  valley  and  mountain  top,  all 
have  been  brought  into  his  service.  This  extreme 
power  of  space-traversion  is  correlated  with  the 
high  development  of  his  central  nervous  system. 

But  while  man  here  again  reveals  his  relation¬ 
ship  to  the  lower  animals,  nevertheless  he  is  char¬ 
acterized  by  the  possession  of  a  power  that  raises 
him  almost  infinitely  above  even  those  animals 
that  stand  nearest  to  him.  He  is  characterized  by 
the  time -relating  power  which  he  shares  with  no 
other  form.  Man  not  only  has  had  a  history,  but 
he  knows  it.  He  is  aware  not  merely  of  present 
conditions,  but  is  capable  of  forming  and  retain¬ 
ing  concepts  of  past  conditions.  Furthermore,  re¬ 
lating  the  past  experiences  of  the  race  with  those 
of  the  present,  he  is  more  or  less  able  to  project 

[64] 


Has  Max  Evolved? 

himself  into  the  future  and  to  foresee  the  conse¬ 
quences  of  present  action  and  present  conditions. 
It  is  this  power  that,  more  than  anything  else, 
marks  him  off  from  the  rest  of  creation  and  leads 
some  to  accord  him  a  special  kingdom  of  his  own. 

For  those  who  have  not  given  special  study  to 
the  question  it  may  he  difficult  to  understand  how 
such  a  vast  difference  in  the  intellectual  powers  of 
man  and  the  apes  could  fail  to  be  associated  with 
vast  structural  differences  in  the  respective  brains. 
The  failure  to  discover  any  such  marked  structural 
differences  has  been  used  as  an  argument,  not  that 
they  do  not  exist,  but  rather  that  man  is  incompe¬ 
tent  to  discover  them.  There  is  a  fallacy  in  this  rea- 
soiling  as  Huxley  long  ago  pointed  out,  when  he 
said  that  the  validity  of  such  an  argument  “hangs 
upon  the  assumption  that  intellectual  power  de¬ 
pends  altogether  on  the  brain — whereas  the  brain 
is  only  one  condition  out  of  many  on  which  intel¬ 
lectual  manifestations  depend;  the  others  being, 
chiefly,  the  organs  of  the  senses  and  the  motor 
apparatuses,  especially  those  which  are  concerned 
in  prehension  and  in  the  production  of  articulate 
speech.  A  man  born  dumb,  notwithstanding  his 
great  cerebral  mass  and  his  inheritance  of  strong 
intellectual  instincts,  would  be  capable  of  few 
higher  intellectual  manifestations  than  an  orang 
or  a  chimpanzee,  if  he  were  confined  to  the  society 
of  dumb  associates.  And  yet  there  might  not  be 
the  slightest  discernible  difference  between  his 
brain  and  that  of  a  highly  intelligent  and  culti¬ 
vated  person.  The  dumbness  might  be  the  result 

[65] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

of  a  defective  structure  of  the  mouth,  or  of  the 
tongue,  or  a  mere  defective  innervation  of  these 
parts;  or  it  might  result  from  congenital  deaf¬ 
ness,  caused  by  some  minute  defect  of  the  internal 
ear,  which  only  a  careful  anatomist  could  dis¬ 
cover. 

“The  argument,  that  because  there  is  an  im¬ 
mense  difference  between  a  man’s  intelligence  and 
an  ape’s  therefore  there  must  be  an  equally  im¬ 
mense  difference  between  their  brains,  appears  to 
me  to  be  about  as  well  based  as  the  reasoning  by 
which  one  should  endeavor  to  prove  that,  because 
there  is  a  “great  gulf”  between  a  watch  that  keeps 
accurate  time  and  another  that  will  not  go  at  all, 
there  is  therefore  a  great  structural  hiatus  be¬ 
tween  the  two  watches.  A  hair  in  the  balance- 
wheel,  a  little  rust  on  the  pinion,  a  bend  in  a  tooth 
of  the  escapement,  a  something  so  slight  that  only 
the  practised  eye  of  the  watchmaker  can  discover 
it,  may  be  the  source  of  all  the  difference.  .  .  . 
Some  equally  inconspicuous  structural  difference 
may  have  been  the  primary  cause  of  the  immeas¬ 
urable  and  practically  infinite  divergence  of  the 
human  from  the  simian  stirps.”  (“Man’s  Rela¬ 
tions  to  the  Lower  Animals,”  by  T.  H.  Huxley.) 


[66] 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  GEOLOGICAL  HISTORY  OF  MAN 

“The  ape  is  this  rough  draft  of  man.  Mankind  have  their  gradations  as  well 
as  the  other  productions  of  the  globe.  There  are  a  prodigious  number  of  con¬ 
tinued  links  between  the  most  perfect  man  and  the  ape.” — John  Wesley. 

The  relation  of  man  to  his  vertebrate  kin  is  be¬ 
trayed  not  only  by  bis  anatomy,  bis  physiology, 
and  bis  individual  development,  but  by  the  facts 
of  his  geological  history  as  well.  True  human  fos¬ 
sils  are  comparatively  rare,  and  correspondingly 
precious.  Even  prehistoric  human  remains,  aside 
from  examples  of  man’s  handiwork,  are  not  com¬ 
mon.  The  immediate  ancestors  of  man  very  prob¬ 
ably  were  not  tree-dwellers ;  they  lived  chiefly  on 
the  ground  though  mostly  in  the  forests.  The  fos¬ 
sil  remains  of  all  forest-living  animals  are  rare 

because  the  conditions  are  not  conducive  to  easv 

•/ 

fossilization.  Even  when  ancestral  man  came  to 
occupy  the  open  plains,  he  was  alert  to  escape  the 
sandstorms  and  floods  bv  which  the  remains  of 
many  kinds  of  animals  have  been  entombed.  It 
was  only  after  the  time  when  the  custom  of  burial 
arose  that  human  remains  began  to  be  more  com¬ 
monly  preserved,  and  these  are  chiefly  portions  of 
the  skull,  jaws  and  teeth,  which  on  account  of 
their  massiveness  and  hardness  are  more  resistant 
than  other  portions  of  the  skeleton  to  the  solvent 
action  of  the  elements. 

[67] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

Man  has  had  a  long  ancestral  line  of  his  own 
which  paralleled  that  of  the  apes.  He  is  not  de¬ 
scended  from  any  known  form  of  ape  either  living 
or  fossil,  but  both  the  human  and  the  ape  lines 
arose  side  by  side  from  more  lowly  forms.  So  far, 
the  exact  forms  involved  in  this  early  history  are 
problematical,  though  Pro  pliopith  ecus,  from  the 
Oligocene  of  northern  Egypt,  is  at  least  structur¬ 
ally  ancestral  to  the  higher  apes  and  man.  Osborn 
thinks  that  from  such  a  form  at  least  four  lines 
of  descent  originated  leading  respectively  to  man, 
to  the  living  orang-utans  of  Borneo  and  Sumatra, 
to  the  gibbons  of  Asia  and  the  Malay  Archipela¬ 
go,  to  the  chimpanzees  and  to  the  gorillas  of 
central  Africa.  Three  of  these  lines  found  their 
safest  homes  in  the  trees,  and  are  now  very  far  re¬ 
moved  from  the  larger-brained,  walking  line  that 
adopted  a  life  on  the  ground  and  finally  devel¬ 
oped  into  man.  These  semi-human  ancestors  of 
ours  walked  only  partially  erect  for  a  very  long 
time,  perhaps  as  far  as  the  Miocene  period.  Of 
course  previous  to  them  lived  the  pre-human  tree¬ 
dwelling  forerunners  of  the  human  race.  An 
epitome  of  the  geological  history  of  the  Primates, 
based  on  the  account  given  by  Schu chert,  runs 
about  as  follows:  In  the  American  Eocene  (Was¬ 
atch)  are  found  the  remains  of  the  oldest  lemurs, 
while  diminutive  but  true  monkeys  are  not  found 
until  in  the  Bridger  formation.  The  close  of  the 
Eocene  witnessed  the  extinction  of  all  the  Pri¬ 
mates  in  North  America.  Propliopithecus ,  appar¬ 
ently  the  progenitor  of  all  the  later  man-like  apes, 

[  68  ] 


The  Geological  History  of  Man 

appears  in  the  later  Oligocene  of  Egypt,  whence 

it  spread  in  the  early  Miocene  into  Europe.  In 

western  Europe  it  gave  rise  to  Pliopithecus,  which 

in  turn  produced  the  still  larger  Dryopithecus. 

In  the  upper  Miocene  this  line  divided  into  that 

which  remained  among  the  tree-tops  and  finally 

produced  the  gibbons,  orangs,  chimpanzees  and 

gorillas :  and  secondly,  into  that  which  took  more 

and  more  exclusively  to  living  upon  the  ground 

and  finally  became  human. 

%/ 

The  latter  line  evidently  spread,  like  the  for¬ 
mer,  into  Asia  and  Africa,  where  the  truly  human 
species  had  its  cradle. 

The  most  ancient  remains  of  man  at  present 
known  are  the  primitive  flints  found  in  the  Upper 
Pliocene  at  Foxhall  in  East  Anglia  (England). 
These  occur  at  two  levels,  16  and  18  feet  respect¬ 
ively  below  the  surface.  “They  include  hafted 
specimens,  side-scrapers  .  .  .  ,  a  number  of  ar¬ 
rowhead-like  point es,  also  borers  and  scrapers  of 
the  ordinary  type.”  Xo  remains  of  human  bones 
have  vet  been  found  at  this  horizon,  but  the  flints 
indicate  a  workmanship  of  no  mean  order.  At  the 
very  least  they  indicate  that  tool-making  man  ex- 
isted  in  England  in  the  late  Pliocene. 

In  Asia  the  most  primitive  of  the  human  line, 
or  the  most  human  of  the  ape-line,  is  represented 
by  the  fossil  remains  of  the  ape-man,  Pithecan¬ 
thropus  erectus ,  found  by  Dubois  in  1891,  in  an 
early  Pleistocene  deposit  at  Trinil,  Java.  It  was 
associated  with  a  great  number  of  mammalian 
bones  of  species  now  extinct.  The  Pithecanthro- 

[69] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

pus  remains  comprise  the  upper  part  of  the  skull, 
three  molar  teeth,  and  the  entire  left  femur.  They 
indicate  a  long-headed  creature  with  a  low  crown 
and  prominent  brow-ridges ;  while  the  volume  of 
the  brain-cavity  (between  850  and  950  cc.)  indi¬ 
cates  a  brain  of  about  28  ounces  in  weight,  the 
forehead  was  more  receding  than  in  the  modern 
chimpanzee.  As  the  maximum  brain  capacity  of 
the  gorilla  is  only  about  20  ounces  (in  volume  be¬ 
tween  500  and  600  cc.),  and  the  average  human 
brain  weighs  about  49  ounces  (1450  to  1550  cc.) 
and  the  smallest  normal  brain  of  living  man  is 
probably  never  less  than  30  ounces,  it  is  clear  that 
the  brain  capacity  of  the  Pithecanthropus  is  more 
than  half-way  between  the  apes  and  man.  It  is 
estimated  from  the  size  and  shape  of  the  femur 
that  the  Pithecanthropus  was  about  5  feet  6  inches 
high,  walked  nearly  erect,  and  may  have  had  the 
rudiments  of  vocal  speech.  The  receding  forehead 
indicates  that  this  creature  had  very  limited  front¬ 
al  lobes,  the  seat  in  the  brain  of  the  higher  intel¬ 
lectual  powers,  and  had  therefore  small  reasoning 
powers,  although  the  special  senses  of  touch,  taste, 
and  sight  were  seemingly  more  acute  than  in  mod¬ 
ern  man.  Pithecanthropus  was  probably  governed 
very  largely  by  instinct  and  thus  lived  more  on  the 
animal  plane.  His  erect  posture,  however,  indi¬ 
cates  the  liberation  of  the  hands  from  any  part  in 
locomotion  and,  as  will  be  indicated  in  the  suc¬ 
ceeding  chapter,  this  was  an  immense  gain,  a 
factor  largely  responsible  for  the  development  of 
the  intellect.  His  teeth  were  more  human  than 

[70] 


The  Geological  History  of  Man 

ape-like,  and  indicate  that  his  food  was  masticated 
in  much  the  fashion  of  modern  man,  and  very 
likely  was  not  far  different  from  that  of  savage 
races  now  living  in  the  tropics. 

The  next  oldest  human  remains  were  found  in 
1907  in  some  river  deposits  of  sand  seventy-nine 
feet  below  the  surface  at  Mauer,  near  Heidelberg, 
not  far  from  the  Rhine,  in  Baden.  The  specimen 
comprises  only  the  lower  jaw  with  all  its  teeth,  yet 
it  displays  a  combination  of  characters  not  found 
in  any  other  specimen  living  or  fossil.  There  is  no 
chin  prominence  and  in  shape  the  whole  jaw  is 
more  nearly  like  that  of  some  large  ape,  yet  the 
teeth  are  distinctly  human.  They  are  rather  small¬ 
er  than  might  have  been  expected  from  the  mass¬ 
iveness  of  the  jaw,  and  though  somewhat  primi¬ 
tive  in  form,  are  clearly  not  simian.  The  whole 
jaw  indicates  a  generalized  type  lower  in  the 
scale  of  development  than  the  Neanderthal  type, 
described  below.  Associated  with  it  was  an  ex¬ 
tensive  series  of  warm-climate  animals,  such  as  the 
straight-tusked  elephant,  Etruscan  rhinoceros, 
primitive  horse,  bison,  wild  cattle,  bear,  lion,  etc., 
all  species  now  extinct  and  serving  to  establish  the 
age  of  the  jaw  as  second  interglacial,  or  approxi¬ 
mately  350,000  years  old.  In  the  same  deposits 
were  found  flint  implements  (eoliths)  of  the 
crudest  workmanship,  if  indeed  they  had  been  con¬ 
sciously  fashioned  at  all. 

There  were  recently  found  by  the  miners  of  the 
Broken  Hill  Mining  Company,  in  Rhodesia, 
South  Africa,  the  skull  and  other  portions  of  the 

[71] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

skeleton  of  a  primitive  type  of  man  that  had  lain 
under  a  huge  pile  comprising  many  tons  of  the 
bones  of  other  animals,  some  sixty  feet  below  the 
surface.  This  find  was  exhibited  at  the  1921  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  Anatomical  Society  of  Great  Britain 
by  Dr.  A.  Smith- Woodward,  of  the  British  Mu¬ 
seum,  in  whose  custody  the  specimen  now  is.  As¬ 
sociated  with  the  skull  there  were  also  found  some 
very  crude  instruments  of  flint  and  quartz  of  hu¬ 
man  workmanship.  According  to  a  report  of  the 
Association  meeting  recently  published  in  Science 
(February  3,  1922,  page  129)  “the  skull  is  in 
some  features  the  most  primitive  one  that  has  ever 
been  found ;  at  the  same  time  it  has  many  points  of 
resemblance  to  (or  even  identity  with)  that  of 
modern  man.  Fortunately,  the  face  is  perfectly 
preserved,  the  supra-orbital  region  is  astonishing¬ 
ly  gorilla-like,  in  its  enormous  size  and  its  unusu¬ 
ally  great  extension  laterally;  the  cranium  is 
almost  flat  on  top,  extending  backward  from  the 
huge  supra-orbital  ridges  rising  only  a  little 
above  the  level  of  their  upper  borders.  It  is  very 
broad  in  the  back,  however,  so  that  its  total  capaci¬ 
ty  is  surprisingly  large.'’  This  would  seem  to  in¬ 
dicate  a  creature  in  whom  the  higher  intellectual 
powers  were  relatively  little  developed,  while  the 
sensory  and  instinctive  centers  of  the  brain  were 
probably  much  greater  than  in  modern  man.  “An¬ 
other  striking  thing  to  be  seen  at  the  back  of  the 
skull  is  the  evidence  (in  the  size  of  the  ridges  and 
the  contrasting  deep  impressions) ,  of  the  tremen¬ 
dous  and  powerful  mass  of  neck  muscles  the  crea- 

[72] 


The  Geological  History  of  Man 

ture  must  have  had.  This  is  one  of  the  points 
upon  which  is  based  the  opinion  that  the  skull  is 
the  most  primitive  yet  found.”  .  .  .  “Dr.  Smith- 
Woodward  pointed  out  the  fact  that  the  suture 
of  the  nasal  with  the  frontal  bone  is  in  a  straight 
line  rather  than  at  a  definite  angle  as  in  the  apes ; 
he  also  called  attention  to  the  small  tubercle  of 
bone  in  the  mid-line  of  the  nasal  fossa  which  .  .  . 
is  distinctly  a  human  trait.”  The  face  was  exceed- 
ingly  long,  for  the  distance  from  the  floor  of  the 
eye-orbit  to  the  margin  of  the  upper  jaw  is  phe¬ 
nomenally  great,  as  was  also  the  case  with  the  up¬ 
per  lip,  since  the  length  from  the  floor  of  the  nasal 
cavity  to  the  base  of  the  teeth  at  the  edge  of  the 
upper  jaw  is  likewise  very  great.  In  other  words, 
the  creature’s  face  must  have  had  much  of  the 
aspect  of  the  modern  gorilla  with  its  strongly 
prognathous  features.  “The  palate  is  beautifully 
arched,  and  the  teeth  form  a  perfect  horseshoe  at 
its  border.  The  wisdom  tooth  is  reduced  in  size — 
another  point  in  common  with  modern  man  and 
never  found  before  in  a  fossil  skull.”  .  .  .  There  is 
“unmistakable  evidence  of  dental  caries,  and  even 
of  abscesses  at  the  roots  of  the  teeth.”  .  .  .  “In  con¬ 
trast  to  the  Xeanderthal  man  .  .  .  ,  this  man  is  be¬ 
lieved  to  have  maintained  the  upright  position,  be¬ 
cause  the  femur  is  relatively  straight  and  when 
fitted  to  the  tibia  (which  was  also  found)  presents 
a  perfectly  good,  straight  leg.”  .  .  .  “Dr.  Eliot 
Smith  at  least  is  quoted  as  leaning  to  the  belief 
that  further  study  will  reveal  the  fact  that  “the 
missing  link”  in  the  ancestry  of  man  is  repre- 

[73] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

sented  in  this  individual — referring,  of  course,  to 
European  man.  The  Neanderthal  man  would 
then  represent  a  branch  off  of  the  main  ancestral 
tree.” 

In  1912  remains  of  a  very  ancient  man  were 
found  in  the  plateau  gravels  at  Piltdown,  near 
Fletching,  in  Sussex,  England.  The  find  consists 
of  the  greater  part  of  a  skull,  which,  however,  was 
injured  and  partly  lost.  The  fragments,  consist¬ 
ing  of  portions  of  the  cranial  walls,  nasal  bones, 
and  a  canine  tooth,  came  into  the  hands  of  Dr.  A. 
Smith- Woodward,  of  the  British  Museum,  who 
has  pieced  them  together,  and  has  thus  been  able 
to  restore  the  greater  part  of  the  skull.  The  brain- 
case  is  typically  human,  though  with  unusually 
thick  walls,  and  has  a  capacity  of  nearly  43  ounces 
( 1300  cc.) .  The  skull  is  relatively  short,  and  while 
the  forehead  is  relatively  high,  it  lacks  the  prom¬ 
inent  brow-ridges  so  well-marked  in  Pithecan¬ 
thropus  and  apparently  also  in  the  Rhodesian 
man.  The  Piltdown  skull  was  associated  with  very 
ancient  types  of  paleolithic  tools,  and  with  a  warm- 
climate  fauna  including  the  hippopotamus  and 
other  animals  now  extinct  in  Europe.  Geologists 
compute  its  age  as  somewhere  about  125,000 
years.  The  Piltdown  man,  while  of  a  higher  type 
than  any  which  preceded  him,  ‘Svas  still  a  primi¬ 
tive  slayer,  though  keener  than  any  of  his  animal 
associates,  and  was  destined  through  the  manufac¬ 
ture  of  better  implements  to  become  a  hunter  of 
a  higher  order.”  ( Schuchert) . 

In  1856  the  Neanderthal  valley  in  Rhenish 

[74] 


The  Geological  History  of  Man 

Prussia  was  the  scene  of  one  of  the  most  interest¬ 
ing  discoveries  of  prehistoric  human  remains. 
Here  in  a  little  cave  in  the  limestone  walls  of  the 
valley  was  found  a  perfect  skeleton  of  a  man, 
since  called  Homo  primigenius  (or  neandertalen- 
sis) ,  but  those  who  found  it  were  so  little  skilled 
in  the  preservation  of  such  a  specimen  that  it  was 
badly  injured  and  partly  lost.  What  remains  has 
been  carefully  preserved  in  the  museum  at  Bonn. 
Since  then  more  than  a  dozen  other  specimens  of 
the  race,  including  adults  of  both  sexes,  as  well 
as  children,  have  been  found  in  caverns  in  Bel¬ 
gium,  France,  Gibraltar,  and  Croatia.  Huxley 
has  given  a  classic  description  of  this  people  in 
these  words : 

“The  anatomical  characters  of  the  skeletons 
bear  out  conclusions  which  are  not  flattering  to  the 
appearance  of  the  owners.  They  were  short  of 
stature  but  powerfully  built,  with  strong,  curious¬ 
ly  curved  thigh  bones,  the  lower  ends  of  which 
are  so  fashioned  that  thev  must  have  walked  with 

• j 

a  bend  at  the  knees.  Their  long  depressed  skulls 
had  very  strong  brow-ridges;  their  lower  jaws, 
of  brutal  depth  and  solidity,  sloped  away  from  the 
teeth  downwards  and  backwards,  in  consequence 
of  the  absence  of  that  especially  characteristic 
feature  of  the  higher  type  of  man,  the  chin  promi¬ 
nence.” 

This  long-lived  race  was  in  existence  for  many 
thousand  years,  and  probably  became  extinct  not 
to  exceed  twenty  to  twenty-five  thousand  years 
ago.  In  the  cold  glacial  climate  they  were  contem- 

[75] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

porary  with  the  hairy  elephant  (mammoth),  the 
bison,  horse,  and  reindeer,  all  of  which  probably 
served  them  for  food.  According  to  Schuchert, 
they  were  a  savage-looking  race  of  stout  build, 
short  stature,  averaging  about  5  feet  3  or  4  inches, 
with  disproportionately  large  heads.  They  were 
skilful  enough  to  make  fairly  good  stone  imple¬ 
ments  and  knew  how  to  kindle  a  fire,  for  hearths 
occur  in  their  cave  abodes.  The  face  was  singu¬ 
larly  unlike  any  existing  race,  with  an  unusually 
large  and  broad  nose,  a  very  wide  upper  lip,  and 
a  continuous  brow-ridge  running  from  temple  to 
temple  at  the  base  of  the  forehead.  This  last  char¬ 
acter  marks  them  off  from  all  other  types  of  man. 
Lull  considers  the  Neanderthal  skull  as  in  many 

%j 

characteristics  nearer  the  apes  than  to  modern 
man.  Though  the  brain  is  surely  human  in  size, 
its  proportions  are  less  like  those  of  modern  man 
than  those  of  the  apes.  “The  chest  is  large,  and  ro¬ 
bust,  the  shoulders  broad,  and  the  hand  large,  but 
the  fingers  are  relatively  short,  the  thumb  lacking 
the  range  of  movement  seen  in  modern  man.” 
The  powerful  leg,  with  its  short  shin  and  clumsy 
foot,  was  clearly  not  adapted  for  rapid  running. 
Moreover,  a  curvature  of  the  leg  was  correlated 
with  a  lack  of  the  neck  curvature  in  the  spine, 
characteristic  of  modern  man.  “One  of  the  most 
remarkable  features  in  connection  with  this  race, 
however,  was  the  very  reverent  way  in  which  the 
dead  were  buried,  with  an  abundance  of  (food), 
ornaments,  and  finely  worked  flints.  This  (cere¬ 
monial  burial)  can  have  but  one  interpretation, 

[76] 


The  Geological  History  of  Man 

the  awakening  within  this  ancient  type  of  the  in¬ 
stinctive  belief  in  immortality.” 

•/ 

After  the  close  of  the  Glacial  Period,  some¬ 
where  from  fifteen  to  twenty-five  thousand  years 
ago,  there  appeared  in  Europe  “men  of  the  human 
species  ( Homo  sapiens)  who  were  still  hunters 
but  who  possessed  far  greater  skill  in  the  making 
of  stone  and  bone  implements,  and  who  also  en¬ 
graved  and  painted  pictures  of  many  kinds  of 
animals  in  the  caves  of  France  and  Spain.”  These 
men,  however,  represent  two  diverse  races;  the 
first  a  tall  people,  averaging  six  feet  in  height  in 
the  males,  with  long  arms  and  long  legs.  They 
had  a  well-fashioned  foot  and  were  evidently  swift 
and  enduring  runners.  The  head  was  remarkably 
long,  with  a  cranial  capacity  ranging  between  52 
and  56  ounces,  in  this  respect  surpassing  the  aver¬ 
age  European  today.  The  face  was  wide  and  short, 
with  extremely  prominent  cheek-bones;  the  orbits 
of  the  eyes  were  wider  than  long,  and  depressed ; 
the  brow-ridges  were  strong;  the  palate  was 
broad;  the  incisor  teeth  in  both  jaws  had  a  tenden¬ 
cy  to  project  forward  while  the  chin  was  narrow 
and  pointed.  This  race  is  generally  referred  to  as 
the  Cro-Magnon. 

The  second  of  these  two  races,  the  Grimaldi, 
specimens  of  which  have  been  found  in  association 
with  the  Cro-Magnons,  was  negroid  in  character, 
shorter  of  stature,  5  feet  2  to  5  inches,  with  the 
lower  limbs  extremely  long,  the  nose  flat  and 
broad,  protruding  jaws,  and  a  somewhat  retreat¬ 
ing  chin.  Schuchert  thinks  that  they  were  prob- 

[77] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

ably  related  to  the  living  Bushmen  of  Africa, 
while  Osborn  notes  the  resemblances  between  the 
Cro-Magnons  and  the  modern  Sikhs  of  India  and 
the  Eskimos.  In  short,  this  clearly  dominant  race 
was  Asiatic  rather  than  African  in  the  sum  of  its 
physical  characters.  The  very  interesting  associa¬ 
tion  of  these  two  distinct  types  suggests  the  pos¬ 
sibility  that  human  slavery  may  have  existed  even 
in  those  prehistoric  times,  when  the  Cro-Magnons 
chased  the  wild  horse  and  reindeer  in  France  and 
Spain,  where  the  climate  was  much  colder  than  it 
is  at  present. 

Schuchert  notes  that  their  “implements  are  of 
the  newer  Paleolithic  type,  that  is  the  workman¬ 
ship  of  the  flints  is  better  and  constantly  improves 
with  time,  and  the  race  had  many  more  kinds  of 
tools  to  serve  more  purposes.  They  also  used  bone 
for  awls  and  ivory  for  skewers  and  ornaments,  and 
made  spears,  bows  and  arrows,  and  fur  garments. 
Themselves  they  ornamented  with  marine  snail 
shells  and  teeth  of  mammals,  and  later  with  beads, 
bracelets,  and  other  objects  manufactured  out  of 
shell  and  ivory.” 

“Armed  with  better  weapons  of  the  chase  and 
a  wider  knowledge  of  their  use,  the  Cro-Magnons 
were  able  to  take  better  advantage  of  their  en¬ 
vironment.  Under  these  circumstances,  they  had 
more  ease  and  time  for  reflection,  and  we  witness 
in  them  the  birth  of  the  fine  arts.  Sculpture  and 
drawing  appear  almost  simultaneously,  and  later 
comes  painting.  This  art  we  find  preserved  in  the 
caves  of  France  and  Spain,  the  art  of  one  period 

[78] 


The  Geological  Histoky  oe  Man 


being  overlaid  by  that  of  later  times,  and  as  time 
goes  on  the  workmanship  is  greatly  improved. 
Animals  of  many  kinds  are  depicted,  at  first  out¬ 
lined  in  black,  then  engraved  on  the  walls  and 
even  on  the  ceilings  of  the  dark  caves ;  later  were 
added  polychromes  in  red,  brown,  black,  and  sev¬ 
eral  shades  of  yellow.  The  pigments  were  of  min¬ 
eral  origin  and  were  mixed  with  grease.  These 
artists  also  engraved  animals  on  stone,  bone,  and 
ivory.  The  human  figure  appears  only  in  the  later 
paintings,  and  in  these,  garmented  women  are 
seen  herding  cattle  and  men  chasing  wild  ani¬ 
mals.”  (From  Schuchert,  “Historical  Geology,” 
pp.  973-4.) 

The  Cro-Magnons,  some  of  whose  descendants 
seem  to  survive  today  in  Dordogne,  at  Landes 
near  the  Garonne  in  Southern  France,  and  at 
Lannion  in  Brittany,  were  evidently  well  ad- 
vanced  toward  civilization,  perhaps  not  far,  if  any, 
below  the  Gauls  whom  Caesar  encountered.  Thev 

e. 


were  certainly  partly,  at  least,  contemporaneous 

with  the  Neanderthal  race,  which  Osborn  thinks 

may  have  owed  its  extinction  in  no  small  degree  to 

contact  with  them.  After  the  decline  of  the  Cro- 

Magnons,  other  Asiatics  crowded  into  Europe, 

the  dark-skinned  long-headed  race  now  occupying 

the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  and  the  round- 

headed  Alpine  type.  This  invasion  in  the  Upper 

Paleolithic,  perhaps  ten  thousand  years  ago,  has 

had  its  influence  on  the  development  of  European 

civilization  to  this  very  dav.  While  the  men  still 

*  * 


delighted  in  the  chase,  they  were  pastoral  enough 

[  79*] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

to  hold  herds  of  cattle  and  flocks  of  sheep  and 
goats,  by  means  of  which  they  were  assured 
against  famine,  and  thus  had  opportunity  for  the 
development  of  agriculture,  religion,  government, 
and  learning.  With  them  came  finally  the  civiliza¬ 
tions  of  Greece  and  Rome,  and  the  impressive 
march  of  events  that  eventuated  into  modem 
Europe. 


[80] 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  ROLE  OF  THE  HAND  IN 
THE  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN 


“The  free  use  of  the  arms  and  hands,  partly  the  cause  and  partly  the  result  of 
man’s  erect  position,  appears  to  have  led  in  an  indirect  manner  to  other  modifi¬ 
cations  of  structure.” 

— Darwin,  Descent  of  Alan. 

Ix  this  sentence  Darwin  cautiously  expresses  an 
idea  which  is  important  enough  to  receive  greater 
emphasis  than  has  been  accorded  it  by  most  writ¬ 
ers.  It  is  a  rather  curious  fact  that  while  much  at¬ 
tention  has  been  given  to  the  evolutionary  his¬ 
tory  of  the  limbs  in  the  horse  and  other  hairy 
quadrupeds,  relatively  little  has  been  paid  the 
human  hand.  And  yet  it  can  be  demonstrated  that 
this  organ  has  probably  played  a  greater  role  than 
any  other  except  its  reciprocals,  eyes  and  brain, 
which  have  mutual  relations  with  it.  MacFarlane 
is  the  only  recent  author  who  seems  to  have  given 
this  matter  any  consideration.  In  other  fields  the 
importance  of  the  hand  has  been  given  recogni¬ 
tion,  as  witness  the  most  noticeable  tendency  in 
present-day  educational  circles,  the  recognition 
of  the  fundamental  importance  of  the  hand  in 
relation  to  mental  development.  The  whole  un¬ 
derlying  motive  of  “vocational  education”  is  the 
training  of  the  brain  through  the  hand.  One  great 
value  of  science  from  a  purely  educational  point 
of  view  lies  in  the  laboratory  work  which  engages 

[81  ]‘ 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

the  hand  and  through  that  the  development  of  the 
most  important  of  the  mental  powers. 

Probably  before  the  simian  ancestors  of  man 
descended  from  the  tree-tops  to  live  upon  the 
ground,  in  the  old  Propliopitliecus  days,  the  hand 
was  occasionally  diverted  from  its  chief  function 
as  an  organ  for  climbing  and  employed  to  break 
off  fruit,  which,  still  held  in  the  hand,  was  used  for 
food.  Later  still,  perhaps  at  first  as  the  result  of 
accident,  branches  were  broken  off,  and  some  of 
these  lodging  in  the  crotch  of  the  tree  became  the 
crude  foundation  or  platform  on  which  to  rest;  in 
time,  this  was  consciously  done,  as  the  orang  and 
chimpanzee  have  been  observed  to  do  at  the  pres¬ 
ent  time.  From  this  habit  it  was  but  a  step  to  that 
of  using  such  broken  off  branches  as  weapons  to 
be  hurled  at  some  enemy  below.  We  may  be  sure 
that  every  such  experience  was  registered  in  the 
brain  tissue  in  the  form  of  a  better-developed  as¬ 
sociation  tract.  The  development  of  the  frontal 
and  parietal  lobes  of  the  brain,  where  the  associa¬ 
tion  centers  concerned  in  movements  of  the  hand 
and  arm  are  located,  is  well  marked  in  the  higher 
man-like  apes,  although  much  inferior  still  to  the 
corresponding  parts  in  man.  When  the  pro-human 
stock  took  to  a  terrestrial  mode  of  life,  in  all  prob¬ 
ability  this  process  had  already  gone  on  farther 
than  in  the  present-day  anthropoids.  But  the  new 
conditions  of  life  on  the  ground  immediately 
brought  about  the  necessity  for  increased  use  of 
the  hands,  and  it  is  clear  that  this  could  only  be 
attained  through  the  adoption  of  the  upright  pos- 

[82] 


The  Hand  in  the  Evolution  of  Man 

ture  and  the  further  liberation  of  the  hands  from 
any  necessary  part  in  locomotion. 

The  necessity  of  defense  against  beasts  of  prey 
must  early  have  led  to  a  more  extensive  employ¬ 
ment  of  broken  limbs  of  trees  as  weapons.  At  first 
any  convenient  limb  picked  up  by  chance  from  the 
ground  was  made  use  of;  then  doubtless  experi¬ 
ence  soon  taught  the  advantages  of  a  heavier 
branch  from  which  all  side  branches  and  twigs  had 
been  removed.  Each  such  gain  in  experience  re¬ 
acted  upon  the  brain  by  the  establishment  of  new 
association  paths  in  the  frontal  and  parietal  lobes. 
Early  it  was  discovered,  no  doubt,  that  other  ob¬ 
jects  than  limbs  of  trees  could  be  made  into  ef¬ 
ficient  weapons,  so  that  loose  stones  were  used 
when  an  unexpected  attack  of  an  enemy  occurred 
in  a  situation  where  a  club  was  not  immediately 
available.  Experience  readily  proved  the  superior¬ 
ity  of  a  small  rounded  stone  for  throwing  at  a  dis¬ 
tance.  Skill  in  throwing  such  weapons  would  soon 
have  followed  their  use — skill  acquired  through 
the  establishment  of  new  association  paths  in  the 
cortex  of  the  frontal  and  parietal  lobes  of  the 
brain.  This  involved  also  correlated  development 
of  the  optic  centers,  for  the  eye  would  become 
more  and  more  a  necessary  element,  since  to  be 
effective  a  correct  judgment  of  distance  is  needed 
in  the  hurling  of  a  stone  against  an  enemy  or  a 
beast  desired  for  food.  Every  act  of  this  sort,  in¬ 
volving  hand,  eye  and  brain,  brought  about  fur¬ 
ther  action,  reaction,  and  interaction  of  these  parts, 
resulting  not  only  in  greater  development  of  these 

[  83  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

organs  individually,  but  also  further  correlation 
between  their  association  centers,  or  in  other 
words  greater  intellectual  powers.  The  struggle 
for  existence  naturally  put  a  premium  on  the  in¬ 
creased  capacity  for  making  these  new  associa¬ 
tions,  and  each  generation  therefore  would  consist 
more  and  more  of  those  individuals  in  whom  this 
capacity  was  the  better  developed. 

The  use  of  the  club  and  stone  in  time  resulted  in 
the  discovery  that  the  two  together,  the  stone 
tied  to  the  end  of  the  club,  gave  increased  effect¬ 
iveness  as  a  weapon,  and  so  was  invented  the  fa¬ 
miliar  war-club.  The  accidental  splitting  of  the 
stone  when  hurled  in  this  way,  leaving  a  relatively 
sharp  edge,  was  found  to  be  even  more  effective, 
since  by  its  use  there  was  added  to  the  crushing 
force  of  the  impact  of  the  weight,  the  cutting  and 
splitting  power  of  the  sharp  edge.  That  this  ac¬ 
count  is  not  altogether  a  product  of  the  writer’s 
imagination,  the  crude  eoliths  so  often  found  in 
various  spots  in  both  the  Old  and  New  Worlds 
abundantly  testify.  This  use  of  the  sharp  edged 
flint  was  a  discoverv  that  undoubtedv  soon  led  to 
the  establishment  of  a  new  association  tract  in  the 
brain,  and  for  some  time  Eolithic  man  made 

use  of  such  accidentallv  formed  ax-heads.  Even- 

• / 

tually,  perhaps  not  for  a  millennium  however,  for 
new  inventions  came  slowly,  but  inevitably,  the 
idea  arose  of  purposivelv  splitting  or  flaking  flint 
nodules,  when  suitable  objects  in  nature  were  not 
readily  available  (perhaps  even  in  those  early 
Paleolithic  times,  “necessity  was  (already)  the 

[84] 


The  Hand  in  the  Evolution  of  Man 

mother  of  invention!”),  and  the  art  of  manufac¬ 
turing  the  crude  tools  of  Paleolithic  time  arose. 
At  first  no  doubt,  weapons  were  the  instruments 
desired  and  made,  but  it  was  early  discovered  that 
a  sharp  edged  flint  was  more  effective  than  the 
bare  hands  and  teeth  in  removing  the  skins  from 
slain  animals.  From  such  a  simple  beginning  the 
manufacture  of  tools  for  the  arts  of  peace  began. 
Every  new  discovery  gave  increased  skill  to  the 
hand  by  the  establishment  of  new  association 
paths  in  the  cortex  of  the  frontal  and  parietal 
lobes  of  the  brain,  thus  leading  man  farther  along 
on  the  path  that  brought  him  up  and  away  from 
his  non-progressive  simian  cousins.  Each  such  ad¬ 
vance  in  brain  development  brought  about  an  in¬ 
crease  in  alertness,  greater  mental  power,  that 
could  not  but  have  been  an  advantage  in  the  strug¬ 
gle  for  existence  to  those  possessing  it,  and  the 
consequent  elimination  of  those  in  whom  the 
capacity  for  this  development  was  not  so  marked. 

Eolithic  man  undoubtedly  was  acquainted  with 
fire  started  in  a  natural  way  by  lightning  or  from 
volcanic  sources.  No  doubt  he  often  warmed  him¬ 
self  on  chilly  days  by  the  smoldering  embers  of  a 
tree  that  had  suffered  the  stroke  of  Jove’s  thun¬ 
derbolt.  Possibly  he  may  have  early  learned  to 
preserve  fire  obtained  from  such  a  source  by  feed¬ 
ing  it  with  dried  branches  picked  up  in  its  neigh¬ 
borhood.  After  he  became  a  cave-dweller  it  would 
have  been  the  natural  thing  for  him  to  carry  a 
burning  brand  to  that  cave  and  by  that  means 
establish  a  fire  which  rendered  life  there  more 

[85] 


Evolution  and  Chkistian  Faith 

comfortable  and  endurable.  But  for  a  long  time 
man  apparently  knew  not  how  to  kindle  a  fire  for 
himself.  At  last  some  time  while  pounding  flints 
together  in  the  manufacture  of  flakes  for  weapons 
or  tools,  the  flying  sparks  caught  some  dry  grass 
or  leaves  and  started  a  fire.  Such  an  accidental  oc¬ 
currence  had  most  momentous  consequences.  Thus 
through  the  work  of  his  hands  man  acquired  the 
means  for  the  production  of  fire,  a  source  of  ener¬ 
gy  that  at  once  put  him  far  in  advance  of  all  the 
beasts  of  nature.  He  soon  discovered  in  the  at¬ 
tempt  to  extinguish  a  fire  with  water  that  flint 
nodules  hot  from  roasting  in  the  flames  were  easi¬ 
ly  and  readily  split  by  the  application  of  cold 
water.  This  discovery  increased  the  ease  with 
which  his  weapons  and  tools  could  be  made  and 
greatly  reduced  the  labor  involved.  Reflection  up¬ 
on  these  discoveries  led  to  increased  development 
of  the  association  paths  and  this  in  turn  reflexly  to 
increased  mentality. 

Early  man  doubtless  plucked  the  ripe  heads  of 
wild  grasses  and  cereals  and  ground  them,  chaff 
and  grain  together,  between  his  teeth  like  the 
beasts  of  the  field.  No  doubt  he  soon  noticed  that 
his  hands  in  gathering  the  heads  removed  more 
or  less  of  the  chaff  and  it  was  but  a  small,  but 
momentous,  step  to  the  rubbing  of  the  heads  be¬ 
tween  the  hands  so  as  to  thresh  the  grain  and  free 
it  from  the  chaff.  For  a  long  time  doubtless,  this 
slow  and  laborious  process  served  its  purpose,  but 
eventually  reflection  brought  the  idea  of  pounding 
and  rubbing  larger  quantities  of  the  grain  in  a 

[86] 


The  Hand  in  the  Evolution  of  Man 

vessel,  at  first  a  mere  cavity  or  depression  in  a 
rock,  and  so  threshing  machines  were  invented. 
Inevitably  some  of  the  grain  would  be  broken  and 
crushed,  and  the  discovery  followed  that  such 
broken  grain  was  more  readily  masticated  than 
when  unbroken.  This  led  to  the  fashioning  of 
grinding  mills,  worked  by  hand  and  crude  at  first, 
but  eventually  more  and  more  refined  as  the  in- 
ventive  power  of  the  mind  developed.  Possibly 
through  the  heat  generated  by  this  frictional 
method  of  threshing  grain,  the  chaff  was  occa¬ 
sionally  set  on  fire,  and  man  had  discovered  a  sec¬ 
ond  method  of  obtaining  this  valuable  asset. 
Every  such  discovery  was  the  means  for  the  estab- 
lishment  of  additional  association  paths  in  the  cor¬ 
tex  of  the  frontal  and  parietal  lobes  and  led  man 
still  farther  on  the  road  toward  the  goal  of  civiliza¬ 
tion. 

Man  was  even  in  his  pre-human  stage  more  or 
less  of  a  gregarious  being,  delighting  in  the  asso¬ 
ciation  of  his  fellows.  At  this  time  he  doubtless 
had  a  series  of  vocal  sounds  by  which  he  expressed 
his  emotions  and  various  simple  ideas.  This  is  no 
more  than  can  be  seen  today  in  many  of  the  lower 
animals,  but  as  man  increased  in  mental  power, 
and  his  manner  of  life  became  more  complex,  he 
more  and  more  felt  the  desire  to  communicate  his 
ideas  to  his  fellows.  The  simplest  means  of  this 
communication  was  through  the  work  of  his  hands 
and  he  scratched  crude  pictures  upon  the  lime¬ 
stone  walls  of  his  cavern  home,  upon  shells,  sticks, 
and  other  suitable  objects.  In  so  doing  he  doubt- 

'[87] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

less  noticed  the  peculiar  sounds  made  by  the  in¬ 
struments  he  was  using,  so  how  natural  that  he 
should  eventually  imitate  these  sounds,  and  thus 
arose  a  simple  form  of  articulate  speech.  Imita¬ 
tion  of  the  cries  of  the  wild  animals  around  him 
sufficed  at  first  to  indicate  the  same  to  his  asso¬ 
ciates,  and  thus  began  the  development  of  those 
centers  in  the  cortex  concerned  with  speech.  From 
imitation  of  natural  sounds,  in  time,  man  went  to 
the  invention  of  arbitrary  sounds  to  indicate  ob¬ 
jects  of  inanimate  nature  and  true  language  thus 
arose.  But  in  all  this  the  hand  played  a  preeminent 
part,  for  in  the  early  stages  when  words  were  few, 
gesture  was  brought  into  use  and  the  hand  was  the 
direct  means  for  conveyance  of  many  ideas  for 
which  words  were  lacking.  MacFarlane  (“The 
Causes  and  Course  of  Organic  Evolution,”  p. 
588 )  has  a  pertinent  paragraph  that  may  be  quoted 
at  this  place  in  support  of  the  view  here  expressed. 
He  says : 

“According  to  eminent  philologists  the  root 
words  of  the  three  great  types  of  human  language 
amount  to  from  120  to  about  500.  Thus  Max 
Muller  reduced  all  Sanskrit  words  to  121,  and  re¬ 
garding  these  Romanes  truly  remarks,  a  “most 
interesting  feature  of  a  general  kind  which  the 
list  presents  is  that  it  is  composed  exclusively  of 
verbs.”  This  peculiarity  also  of  the  ultimate 
known  roots  of  all  languages,  which  shows  them 
to  have  been  “expressions  of  actions  and  states, 
as  distinguished  from  objects  and  qualities,”  is 
important.  But  a  most  striking  circumstance  is 

[88] 


The  Hand  in  the  Evolution  of  Man 

that  of  the  total  number  about  68  or  70,  or  more 
than  60  per  cent  are  wholly  connected  with  mo¬ 
tion  of  the  hand  or  arm.  Thus  to  abstract  the  first 
twenty-five,  of  which  such  is  true,  we  have  “dig, 
weave  (or  sew)  crush  (or  pound) ,  sharpen,  smear, 
scratch,  divide  (or  share),  cut,  gather,  stretch, 
mix,  scatter,  sprinkle,  shoot  (throw  at),  pierce, 
(or  split),  join  (or  fight),  tear,  smash,  measure, 
kindle,  milk,  pour,  separate,  glean,  and  cook.” 
From  spoken  to  written  language  is  but  a  short 
step,  which  however  involves  further  use  of  the 
hand. 

In  short,  we  may  easily  see  that  in  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  those  characteristics  in  which  man  differs 
most  from  other  animals,  viz.,  in  the  greater  de¬ 
velopment  of  the  frontal  and  parietal  lobes  of  the 
brain,  in  the  possession  of  articulate  speech,  as 
well  as  in  the  possession  of  greater  mental  power, 
this  superiority  has  come  about  directly  or  indi¬ 
rectly  from  the  use  of  his  hand  as  such.  The  most 
momentous  day  in  the  history  of  human  kind  was 
that  on  which  pro-man  adopted  the  upright  pos¬ 
ture,  and  thus  liberated  his  hands  for  uses  other 
than  locomotion.  From  the  latter  have  followed  all 
the  advances  which  he  has  made  in  mind,  body, 
and  in  the  arts;  indeed,  all  civilization  has  inevi¬ 
tably  come  from  manual  dexterity. 


[89] 


CHAPTER  VII 


SOME  DISADVANTAGES  OF  THE 
UPRIGHT  POSITION 


That  the  upright  position  is  not  natural  to  man 
is  clearly  manifest  by  the  difficulty  which  every 
child  experiences  in  learning  to  maintain  it.  In 
no  other  species  does  the  young  have  to  learn  by 
a  long  and  laborious  process  of  conscious  effort  to 
acquire  the  usual  posture  of  the  adult.  In  most 
cases  the  young  very  early  become  almost  or  quite 
as  adept  in  locomotion  as  the  parents.  This  is  par¬ 
ticularly  well  shown  in  those  forms  in  the  case 
of  which  safety  depends  on  speed  in  the  escape 
from  enemies.  A  few  hours  at  most  enables  the 
young  colt  to  trot  at  its  mother’s  side  and  to  keep 
up  the  pace  for  long  intervals  of  time. 

That  man  has  adopted  the  upright  position 
despite  the  difficulty  of  learning  to  maintain  it, 
is  sufficient  evidence  that  it  has  compensating  ad¬ 
vantages,  and  it  is  clear  that  it  enables  him  to  ex¬ 
tend  the  horizion  of  his  vision  so  as  earlier  to  see 
the  form  and  approach  of  a  possible  enemy,  and 
furthermore,  as  already  pointed  out,  it  has  freed 
his  hands  for  other  purposes  than  locomotion. 
Despite  these  obvious  advantages,  however,  it  can¬ 
not  be  gainsaid  that  there  are  corresponding  dis- 

[91  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 


advantages.  Anatomically  these  are  numerous  and 
contribute  their  evidence  toward  the  view  of  man’s 
derivation  from  lower  forms.  This  subject  is  one 
about  which  little  has  been  written  and  what  fol¬ 
lows  is  intended  to  be  a  suggestive  outline  rather 
than  an  exhaustive  treatment. 

In  the  case  of  animals  that  go  on  all  fours,  the 
limbs  are  attached  at  the  “four  corners”  of  the 
body  in  such  a  way  as  to  divide  the  load  among 
them  and  thus  to  lighten  the  burden  which  each 
must  assume.  When  man  took  to  walking  upon  his 
hind  legs,  on  the  other  hand,  all  the  weight  of 
body  and  head  was  thrown  upon  the  posterior 
extremities.  In  order  to  support  this  weight  rela¬ 
tively  greater  development  was  forced  upon  the 
hip  bones  and  the  legs,  but  this  perhaps  was  not 
so  serious  as  the  various  curvatures  of  the  spine 
which  also  followed.  Man  is  the  only  animal,  with 
the  partial  exception  of  the  anthropoid  apes,  in 
which  the  backbone  is  necessarily  curved  in  order 
to  render  more  easy  the  support  of  the  weight  of 
the  trunk  and  head,  and  in  those  apes  the  amount 
of  spinal  curvature  is  in  direct  proportion  to  the 
uprightness  of  their  posture. 

But  man  has  among  the  four  curves  in  his  back¬ 
bone,  one  which  even  these  apes  do  not  have,  and  it 
is  one  which  has  more  serious  consequences  than 

anv  of  the  others.  This  is  that  located  in  the  small 

%} 

of  the  back  just  above  the  hip  bones,  and  is  di¬ 
rected  toward  the  ventral  (or  front)  side  of  the 
body,  thus  encroaching  greatly  upon  the  abdom¬ 
inal  space,  already  over-crowded  by  the  viscera 

[  92  ] 


Disadvantages  of  the  Upright  Position 

which  have  sunk  into  it  as  the  result  of  the  upright 
position.  Yet  this  particular  spinal  curvature 
could  not  be  avoided  if  man  were  to  walk  upright. 
Aside  from  the  so-called  normal  curvatures  of  the 
spine,  it  is  clear  that  the  pathological  curvatures, 
so  frequently  the  cause  of  distress  and  worse  in 
man,  are  directly  due  to  the  inability  of  a  rela- 
tively  weak  backbone  to  support  the  body  in  an 
upright  position,  and  they  are  so  extremely  rare 
in  the  animals  which  go  on  “all  fours”  because  in 
them  the  spinal  column  is  not  subjected  to  those 
strains  which  in  man  are  the  directly  exciting 
causes  of  the  trouble. 

The  thickening  of  the  hip-bones  that  has  un¬ 
doubtedly  resulted  from  the  erect  posture,  to¬ 
gether  with  the  more  solid  unions  among  the  six 
elements  that  make  up  the  hip  girdle,  has  had  a 
still  more  serious  effect  upon  man.  This  is  the  in¬ 
creased  difficulty  which  the  reduction  in  the  size 
of  the  already  narrow  birth  canal  has  placed  in  the 
way  of  the  ready  egress  of  the  young  during  the 
process  of  parturition.  In  none  of  the  lower  ani¬ 
mals  is  the  labor  and  pain  of  birth  even  relatively 
so  great  as  in  woman.  This  is  in  part  due  to  the 
relatively  large  size  of  the  head  of  the  unborn 
child,  the  direct  result  of  the  large  brain  whose 
development  is  indirectly,  through  the  hand,  the 
result  of  the  upright  position.  The  rotation  of  the 
human  leg  at  the  hip,  from  the  normal  position 
of  the  quadruped,  accompanied  by  the  retention 
of  the  large  angle  between  the  head  and  the  shaft 
of  the  thigh  bone,  results  not  onlv  in  a  mechanical 

[  93  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

inconvenience,  but  is  also  the  reason  why  in  old 
jieople  a  fracture  at  this  place  is  not  only  of  fre¬ 
quent  occurrence  but  is  often  incurable. 

Civilized  man  when  he  takes  his  ease  in  office 
or  at  home  is  prone  to  put  his  feet  on  the  top  of  his 
desk  or  table,  often  to  the  annoyance  of  his  wife. 
This  tendency  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  point  of 
the  hip  bones  which  must  support  the  body  weight 
when  he  is  seated  with  the  trunk  upright  are  too 
close  together  for  comfort;  in  a  quadruped  they 
never  serve  such  a  purpose.  Man  therefore  un¬ 
consciously  seeks  to  support  a  portion  of  his 
weight  on  the  small  of  his  back  and  in  this  way 
relieves  the  uncomfortable  pressure  upon  his  hip 
bones.  In  woman  the  hip  girdle  is  considerably 
broader  than  in  man,  hence  the  discomfort  just 
mentioned  is  probably  not  so  acute  in  her  case,  and 
so  woman  is  not  so  prone  to  adopt  the  ungraceful 
sprawl  so  commonly  assumed  by  her  husband. 

But  it  is  in  standing  still  that  man  most  easily 
discovers  the  disadvantages  of  the  unnatural  pos¬ 
ture  he  has  assumed.  Everyone  has  experienced 
the  peculiarly  fatiguing  effects  that  follow  from 
standing  for  any  length  of  time  in  one  place  and 
in  one  position.  In  military  organizations  this  fact 
is  recognized  and  frequent  changes  of  position  are 
provided,  but  occasionally  in  ceremonies  in  which 
the  men  may  remain  at  attention  for  long  periods 
it  has  happened  that  some  of  the  weaker  have 
fainted  from  the  strain.  This  fatigue  is  due  to  at 
least  two  faults  in  man’s  anatomical  structure 
which  clearly  reveal  that  he  was  not  originally  in- 

[94] 


Disadvantages  of  the  Upright  Position 

tended  to  be  a  biped.  The  first  of  these  is  the  man¬ 
ner  of  attachment  of  his  over-heavy  head  to  the 
upper  end  of  his  backbone.  The  skull  is  not  so 
placed  as  to  give  an  even  balance,  but  on  the  con¬ 
trary  there  is  a  constant  tendency  for  the  head  to 
drop  forward  so  that  the  chin  may  rest  on  the 
chest.  In  order  to  overcome  this  and  to  hold  the 
head  erect  man  constantly  must  make  use  of  the 
muscles  in  the  back  of  the  neck  and  shoulders, 
and  this  shortly  becomes  very  fatiguing  without 
frequent  change  of  position.  The  second  anatom¬ 
ical  fault  that  produces  excessive  fatigue  when 
one  remains  long  in  a  standing  position  is  that 
which  brings  about  the  strain  on  the  muscles  of  the 
abdomen,  the  lower  back  and  thigh  through  the 
constant  use  of  these  muscles  to  prevent  his  fall¬ 
ing  over.  In  the  quadruped  with  the  four  legs  held 
under  the  body  there  is  no  such  muscular  strain, 
but  in  man  with  the  legs  stretched  straight  out 
behind  parallel  to  the  long  axis  of  the  body,  the 
strain  is  excessive  and  consequently  wearisome. 
Furthermore,  the  arch  of  the  foot,  while  admir¬ 
ably  adapted  to  quadrupedal  locomotion,  is  very 
poorly  fashioned  for  bipedal  support.  As  a  result 
the  arches  often  “break  down,”  and  broken  arches 
or  fiat-footedness  is  a  very  frequent  condition,  the 
ill  effects  of  which  are  commonly  recognized. 
There  is  little  doubt  that  many  affections  of  the 
joints,  such  as  that  long  series  generally  grouped 
in  the  popular  mind  as  “rheumatic,”  are  more  or 

less  directlv  due  to  the  results  of  the  strains  inci- 
•/ 

dent  to  the  upright  position. 

[95] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

Eye-strain  is  often  largely  due  to  the  constant 
muscular  effort  necessary  to  secure  coordination 
and  convergence  in  vision.  Likewise  as  a  result  of 
the  upright  position  it  is  necessary  for  man  to  roll 
his  eyes  down  toward  the  horizontal  by  action  of 
the  lower  straight  eye-muscles.  That  all  these  re¬ 
sult  in  muscular  fatigue  is  shown  by  the  frequent 
necessity  that  everyone  experiences  of  “resting 
the  eyes”  when  engaged  upon  close  work,  by  rais¬ 
ing  them  and  directing  the  sight  for  a  time  at 
distant  objects.  Moreover,  it  is  well  known  that  in 
sleep  or  after  death  the  eye-balls  tend  to  roll  up¬ 
ward  and  to  assume  the  normal  position  that  is 
maintained  by  the  quadruped.  Even  in  death 
therefore  man  offers  mute  testimony  to  his  lowlier 
origin. 

In  the  quadruped  the  ventral  body  wall  is 
strongest  forward  where  the  heaviest  organs  are 
located  and  where  the  muscular  diaphragm  and 
ribs  assist  in  their  support.  But  in  assuming  the 
upright  position  the  weight  of  these  organs  is 
thrown  on  what  is  now  the  lowermost  portion  of 
the  abdomen,  where  it  is  not  only  weakest  in  mus¬ 
cular  development  but  where  no  aid  is  secured 
from  the  ribs  or  diaphragm.  The  result  is  the  fre¬ 
quent  dropping  down  of  the  viscera  to  the  dis¬ 
tress  of  their  owner,  the  derangement  resulting  in 
stomach  and  intestinal  disorders  that  interfere 
with  digestion,  cause  the  production  of  “gas  in 
the  stomach”  and  its  attendant  inconveniences, 
and  to  no  little  extent,  results  in  chronic  consti¬ 
pation  and  its  accompanying  evils.  The  heavy  kid- 

[96] 


Disadvantages  of  the  Upright  Position 

neys  tend  frequently  to  drop  down  and  to  become 
the  so-called  “floating  kidneys”  with  the  frequent 
consequences  of  twisted  and  deranged  blood  ves¬ 
sels  and  ureters,  with  serious  effects  upon  the  kid¬ 
ney  itself  and  even  more  serious  physiological 
effects  upon  the  human  being  so  affected.  The 
atrophy  or  degeneration  of  these  organs  is  re¬ 
sponsible  for  serious  functional  derangements  that 
may  eventuate  into  disease  and  death. 

Furthermore,  the  depression  of  the  viscera  into 
the  abdominal  cavity  frequently  leads  to  that 
painful  form  of  rupture  known  as  “inguinal  her¬ 
nia,”  a  derangement  unknown  among  quadru¬ 
peds.  The  pressure  upon  the  great  vein  of  the  ab¬ 
dominal  cavity  following  not  only  upon  the  great¬ 
er  column  of  blood  which  it  must  support  in  the 
upright  position  but  also  as  a  result  of  the  in¬ 
creased  pressure  upon  it  of  the  additional  load  of 
the  viscera,  is  very  often  directly  responsible  for 
disturbances  in  its  dependent  veins,  resulting  in 
hemorrhoids,  varicocele,  and  varicose  veins  and 
ulcers  of  the  leg.  Many  of  the  derangements  of 
the  reproductive  organs  “peculiar  to  women”  are 
also  due  to  the  unnatural  position  of  the  organs 
of  generation  when  the  quadrupedal  posture  has 
been  abandoned,  as  well  as  to  the  lack  of  ability 
on  the  part  of  the  weak  abdominal  wall  and  the 
internal  supports  to  hold  them  in  place. 

It  is  clear,  then,  from  this  hasty  and  incomplete 
survey  that  for  the  inestimable  advantages  man 
gained  through  the  upright  position  in  its  influence 
upon  the  brain  and  its  development,  and  its  ac- 

[97] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 


companiment,  the  greater  mental  power  and  at¬ 
tainments,  he  has  paid  and  must  continue  to  pay 
in  pain,  suffering,  and  the  “sweat  of  his  brow.” 
Yet  the  advantages  far  out- weigh  the  disadvant¬ 
ages,  and  we  would  not,  if  we  could,  return  per¬ 
manently  to  our  ancestral  posture. 


[98] 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE  EMBRYOLOGY  OF  THE  MIND 


The  origin  and  development  of  the  mind  or 
soul  in  the  individual  is  to  many  a  matter  of  deep 
mystery,  and  explanations  have  been  sought  in 
various  but  usually  entirely  speculative  directions. 
The  explanations  arrived  at  have  varied  all  the 
wav  from  the  notion  that  mind  is  a  material  secre- 
tion  of  the  brain  to  the  idea  that  it  is  a  miraculous 
product  specially  implanted  by  the  Creator  with¬ 
in  the  individual  at  some  time,  usually  undeter¬ 
mined,  either  before  or  after  birth.  The  psycholo¬ 
gists  have  not  gone  to  the  root  of  the  problem, 
for  they  have  been  content  to  begin  with  the  child 
after  birth  and  to  trace  his  growth  in  mental 
power  from  that  point  on.  The  study  of  prenatal 
behavior  has  been  more  or  less  widely  attended  to 
with  reference  to  the  lower  vertebrates,  in  which 
the  higher  manifestations  of  mentality  do  not  ex¬ 
ist,  but  no  one  had  undertaken  a  study  of  the  em- 
bryology  of  the  mind  in  mammals  until  the  pres¬ 
ent  author  began  his  investigations  in  that  field 
some  years  ago.  The  scientific  method  must  be 
adopted  here  also,  and  while  the  results  obtained 
will  be  found  to  furnish  proximal  explanations, 
the  ultimate  cause  of  mind  and  life  itself  will  be 

[99] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

found  only  to  recede  to  a  greater  distance,  but  not 
to  be  solved.  This  will  be  recurred  to  in  a  later 
chapter. 

In  order  to  set  forth  the  author’s  point  of  view 
in  a  proper  manner,  it  would  be  necessary  to  trace 
the  principal  developmental  stages  of  the  bodily 
structures  in  man  or  some  other  mammal.  The 
limitations  set  by  the  purposes  of  this  book,  how¬ 
ever,  forbid  anything  but  the  briefest  epitome  of 
such  an  account.  As  has  been  said  in  a  preceding 
chapter,  every  many-celled  animal,  including 
man ,  begins  its  development  in  the  form  of  a  fer¬ 
tilized  egg ,  a  single  cell  in  which  there  are  none  of 
the  structures  characteristic  of  the  adult,  though 
in  certain  cases  at  least  it  may  foreshadow  the 
appearance  of  such  structures  by  the  presence  of 
specific  kinds  of  living  matter,  the  so-called  organ¬ 
forming  substances,  which  give  rise  to  specific  tis¬ 
sues  or  organs  of  the  adult.  These  organ-forming 
substances  have  a  definite  arrangement  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  each  other  within  the  egg,  a  phenomenon 
indicated  by  what  are  technically  called  polarity 
and  symmetry.  The  egg-cell  furthermore  is  known 
in  all  cases  to  divide  many  times  and  so,  as  devel¬ 
opment  proceeds,  to  produce  the  vast  number  of 
cell-units  of  which  the  adult  organism  is  com¬ 
posed.  Accompanying  this  process  of  cell-multi¬ 
plication  there  goes  on  the  differentiation  of  the 
cells  to  form  the  various  kinds  of  tissues,  such  as 
nerve,  muscle,  bone,  etc.,  and  the  correlated  physi¬ 
ological  division  of  labor  as  the  result  of  which 
some  tissues  serve  for  protection,  some  for  sup- 

[  100  ] 


The  Embryology  of  the  Mind 

port,  some  for  contraction,  some  for  digestion,  etc. 
That  one  kind  of  egg  develops  into  a  frog,  another 
into  a  chick,  and  still  another  into  a  man,  is  due  to 
the  peculiar  specific  organization  with  which  each 
begins,  an  organization  that  is  inherited  from  the 
parents,  and  is  ordinarily  little  modified  by  the 
environment.  But  after  all  is  said,  it  is  still  true 
that  the  earliest  differentiations  of  the  various 
kinds  of  eggs  are  relatively  few  and  simple  in 
comparison  with  the  manifold  complexities  of 
the  adult. 

Living  matter  (technically  called  protoplasm) 
in  the  simplest  form  known  possesses  certain  fun¬ 
damental  characteristics  among  the  most  impor¬ 
tant  of  which  are  the  properties  of  ( 1 )  organiza¬ 
tion,  (2)  metabolism,  (or  the  power  to  change 
food  materials  into  living  substance,  to  liberate 
energy  by  the  breaking  down  of  previously  formed 
substances,  and  the  elimination  of  the  waste  prod¬ 
ucts),  (3)  reproduction,  and  (4)  sensitivity.  Of 
these  the  last  three  are  clearly  related  to  the  first 
as  function  to  structure.  That  is  to  say,  metabol¬ 
ism,  reproduction,  and  sensitivity  are  properties 
of  the  organization  inherent  in  protoplasm.  Of 
these  three  inherent  functions  of  the  simplest  liv¬ 
ing  matter,  the  last,  sensitivity  only,  concerns  us 
here.  Sensitivity  may  be  defined  as  the  property 
of  protoplasm  on  account  of  which  it  is  able  to  re¬ 
ceive  the  effects  of  changes  in  its  environment  (in 
the  broadest  sense  of  that  term) ,  to  store  up  these 
effects  for  a  longer  or  shorter  time,  and  to  react 
or  respond  to  them  by  some  kind  of  change  within 

[101] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

the  protoplasm  itself.  It  is  a  phenomenon  familiar 
to  every  student  of  elementary  biology.  For  ex¬ 
ample,  the  amoeba ,  one  of  the  simplest  of  one- 
celled  animals,  reacts  in  a  very  simple  way  toward 
most  stimuli,  usually  by  moving  toward  or  away 
from  the  source  of  stimulation.  But  even  this  very 
simple  case  reveals  a  certain  degree  of  complexi¬ 
ty.  The  simplest  possible  condition  would  be  one 
where  the  protoplasm  always  reacts  in  the  same 
way  to  every  stimulus,  no  matter  what  its  nature. 
It  is  easy  to  see  why  no  such  simple  case  is  ever 
observed.  Any  bit  of  living  matter  that  would  re¬ 
act  toward  poison  or  other  deleterious  condition  in 
the  same  way  as  toward  food  or  any  other  bene¬ 
ficial  stimulus,  would  soon  be  eliminated.  Conse¬ 
quently  the  very  lowliest  organisms,  such  as  bac¬ 
teria  and  the  unicellular  animals,  exhibit  what  is 
termed  differential  sensitivity.  In  other  words, 
thev  discriminate  in  a  crude  way  between  stimuli 
of  different  kinds,  or  between  different  degrees  of 
stimulation  of  the  same  kind.  Thus  light  has  a 
stimulating  effect  upon  most  organisms,  some  of 
which  respond  by  moving  towards  it  when  it  is 
weak,  or  away  from  it  when  it  is  strong;  or  they 
move  toward  light  from  one  end  of  the  spectrum 
and  a  wav  from  that  at  the  other  end.  The  unicel- 
lular  organisms  (or  in  fact  organisms  of  all  kinds) 
find  a  certain  temperature  most  agreeable.  If  in¬ 
closed  in  such  a  way  that  they  can  move  between 
points  hotter  and  colder  than  that  most  agree¬ 
able,  they  will  be  found  to  leave  the  extremes  and 
to  congregate  at  or  near  the  point  where  the  tern- 

[  102  ] 


The  Embryology  of  the  Mind 

perature  suits  them  best.  Similar  reactions  are  ob¬ 
served  when  the  organisms  are  stimulated  by  weak 
and  strong  acids,  the  positive  and  negative  poles 
of  a  battery,  violet  and  red  rays  of  light,  etc. 
While  within  limits  most  organisms  tend  to  re¬ 
spond  in  the  same  way  to  the  same  stimulus,  this 
is  not  universally  true;  some  will  respond  to  a 
stimulus  to  which  others  may  be  apparently  wholly 
indifferent. 

Experiments  upon  the  reproductive  cells  of  the 
higher  animals  show  that  they  exhibit  this  same 
fundamental  property  of  differential  sensitivity . 
Sperm-cells,  (the  male  reproductive  cells),  for 
example,  have  been  found  to  move  toward  a  weak 
solution  of  formic  acid,  toward  weak  alkalis  and 
alcohol,  and  toward  extracts  of  the  eggs  of  their 
own  species,  while  toward  extracts  of  the  eggs  of 
other  species  they  are  either  indifferent  or  react 
negatively  by  moving  away  from  the  stimulating 
substance.  The  eggs  of  most  of  the  higher  animals 
are  not  capable  of  locomotion,  possibly  due  to  the 
large  load  of  inert  food  material  which  they  con¬ 
tain,  but  in  the  case  of  hydra  and  other  simple 
forms  the  egg  resembles  an  amoeba,  moving  about 
and  displaying  the  fundamental  properties  of  pro¬ 
toplasm  found  in  that  lowly  organism.  But  within 
the  egg-cells  of  even  the  vertebrates  movements  of 
their  substance  occur,  and  by  these  movements  the 
sensitivity  of  the  egg  can  be  determined.  Thus,  if 
one  prick  the  surface  of  a  freshly  laid  frog’s  egg 
with  a  fine  pointed  needle,  it  will  be  found  that  the 
material  at  the  surface  of  the  egg  flows  toward  the 

[  103  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

point  of  stimulation,  accumulating  there  until  it 
forms  a  little  mound  which  in  size  would  be  com¬ 
parable  to  Mt.  Everest  were  the  egg  magnified  to 
the  volume  of  the  earth.  In  other  words,  the 
amount  of  this  movement  of  egg-material  is  rela¬ 
tively  enormous. 

A  similar  response  is  made  to  the  attack  of  the 
first  male  reproductive  cell  (sperm-cell)  that 
reaches  the  surface  of  the  egg.  That  the  egg  really 
possesses  differential  sensitivity  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  no  such  reaction  follows  the  attachment 
of  the  second  or  later  male-cell.  After  the  fertili¬ 
zation  of  an  egg  by  a  male-cell  of  the  species,  it 
and  the  cells  which  result  from  its  division  display 
similar  phenomena.  In  response  to  stimuli  origin¬ 
ating  either  outside  or  inside  the  egg,  the  organ¬ 
forming  materials  are  separated  and  distributed 
to  other  definite  positions  in  the  egg  or  in  the 
cells  derived  from  it.  As  one  result  of  this  differen¬ 
tiation  it  soon  comes  to  pass  that  certain  portions 
of  the  young  embryo  are  sensitive  to  some  sorts 
of  stimuli  to  which  other  parts  may  not  respond 
at  all,  and  vice  versa ,  the  final  result  being  the 
formation  of  organs  of  special  sense  by  which  only 
stimuli  of  a  particular  sort  are  received.  In  short, 
beginning  with  general  sensitivity  in  the  germ- 
cells,  or  at  most  differential  sensitivity,  there  are 
developed  from  these,  pari  passu  with  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  organs  of  the  embryo,  the  special 
senses.  The  foundation  of  all  mental  activity  lies 
in  sensations,  such  as  those  of  sight,  hearing,  touch, 
taste,  smell,  equilibrium,  temperature,  etc. 

[  104] 


The  Embryology  of  the  Mind 

The  simplest  of  all  responses  to  a  stimulus  is 
movement ,  either  toward  or  away  from  the  source 
of  stimulation.  In  the  simplest  plants  or  animals, 
and  frequently  also  in  higher  forms  where  move¬ 
ment  is  possible,  such  automatic  reactions  are 
termed  tropisms.  The  reactions  of  the  reproduc¬ 
tive  cells  already  mentioned  are  tropisms,  as  well 
as  the  movements  of  cell-masses  in  embryonic  de¬ 
velopment,  such  as,  for  example,  the  bulging  in 
or  out  of  the  wall  of  a  hollow  sphere  ( gastrula - 
tion) ,  the  formation  of  folds  or  tubes  in  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  the  central  nervous  svstem  or  of  the 
digestive  tract.  Indeed,  the  growth  of  certain 
structural  elements,  as  for  example  that  of  the 
nerves,  by  which  the  sensory  trunks  find  their  way 
to  their  appropriate  sense  organs,  while  the  motor 
portions  of  the  same  nerves  go  unerringly  to  mus¬ 
cles  or  glands,  is  clearly  a  case  of  chemotropism 
or  a  response  to  a  chemical  stimulus,  as  was  shown 
some  years  ago  by  the  observations  and  experi¬ 
ments  of  Professor  Harrison  of  Yale  University. 

A  tropism  is  a  reflex  reduced  to  its  lowest  terms. 
The  transition  from  a  simple  tropism  to  a  reflex 
action  accompanies  or  results  from  the  increase 
in  structural  complexity  brought  about  by  the 
formation  of  the  tissues  and  organs  of  the  embryo. 
Thus  in  the  chick  the  heart  is  formed  and  begins 
to  beat  before  there  is  any  noteworthy  develop¬ 
ment  of  muscle  tissue  in  its  walls,  before  there  is 
any  connection  between  it  and  the  nervous  sys¬ 
tem,  and  before  there  is  any  blood  to  be  pumped 
by  its  contractions.  The  amnion,  or  sac  filled  with 

[  105] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

water,  in  which  the  embryo  of  reptiles,  birds  and 
mammals  is  suspended  for  the  duration  of  the 
fetal  period,  likewise  early  begins  rhythmic  con¬ 
tractions  which  result  in  a  rocking  of  the  embryo 
to  and  fro  as  in  a  cradle,  while  there  is  no  nervous 
connection  involved.  It  is  possible  that  a  habit  is 
thus  early  formed  that  accounts  for  the  soothing 
effect  that  rocking  in  its  mother’s  arms  or  in  a 
cradle  has  upon  the  fretful  baby.  After  the  devel¬ 
opment  of  the  nerves  and  nerve  centers  many  other 
organs  and  parts  of  the  growing  embryo  display 
even  more  complex  movements,  such  as  the  open¬ 
ing  and  closing  of  the  mouth  accompanied  by 
swallowing  movements  in  the  human  fetus  begin¬ 
ning  during  the  fourth  month  of  prenatal  life. 
These  are  simply  extensions  of  the  tropism,  but 
because  of  their  increased  complexity  are  termed 
refleoces  or  reflex  actions. 

When  reflexes  become  so  complex  as  to  involve 
more  than  single  organs  or  parts ;  especially  when 
they  have  come  under  the  direction  of  the  nervous 
system  and  concern  the  welfare  of  the  organism  as 
a  whole  rather  than  of  a  particular  part ,  they  are 
termed  instincts  or  instinctive  reactions .  For  ex¬ 
ample,  in  the  author’s  own  investigations  upon  the 
developing  mammal,  it  was  found  that  the  young 
before  birth  have  the  instinct  for  orienting  them¬ 
selves,  or  assuming  a  position  when  at  rest  such 
as  bring  the  dorsal  side  of  the  body  up ;  they  also 
exhibit  the  swallowing  reflex  and  have  the  suck¬ 
ing  instinct  sometime  before  birth.  This  probably 
accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  human  fetus  swal- 

[106] 


The  Embryology  of  the  Mind 

lows  portions  of  the  amniotic  fluid  and  the  various 
solids  suspended  in  it  during  at  least  the  last  five 
months  of  prenatal  life.  Some  other  instincts  no 
more  complicated  than  these,  so  far  as  known, 
do  not  appear  until  after  birth,  though  that  the 
infant  is  capable  of  displaying  them  earlier  is  clear 
from  the  fact  that  seven-months  babies  nurse  and 
develop  other  instinctive  activities  very  nearly  or 
quite  as  soon  after  birth  as  do  those  born  at  full 
term.  Differential  sensitivity ,  tropisms ,  reflexes, 
and  instincts  form  a  succession  of  developmental 
stages  in  the  individual ,  therefore,  that  is  paral¬ 
leled  by  the  same  phenomena  as  displayed  by 
organisms  at  various  levels  of  the  animal  scale. 
Furthermore,  they  appear  in  the  same  order  and 
are  composed  of  the  same  sorts  and  grades  of  phe¬ 
nomena  in  individual  development  as  they  must 
have  in  the  evolution  of  the  species. 

The  reaction  of  protoplasm  to  a  stimulus  fre¬ 
quently,  if  not  always,  is  of  two  sorts.  There  is  the 
immediate  response  or  tropism  already  mentioned, 
and  a  more  subtle,  invisible  response  that  mani¬ 
fests  itself  only  after  one  or  more  additional  stim- 
uli  have  been  encountered.  This  is  what  psycholo¬ 
gists  term  the  “summation  of  stimuli and  the  re¬ 
sponse  to  such  a  series  is  frequently  different  in 
kind  or  at  least  in  degree  from  the  reaction  to  a 
single  stimulus.  In  other  words,  the  effect  of  the 
first  stimulus  persists  for  a  longer  or  shorter  time 
in  the  protoplasm  and  may  modify  subsequent 
reactions.  One  may  readily  suppose  that  the  re¬ 
sponse  to  a  stimulus  involves  the  formation  of  a 

[  107] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

new  chemical  compound  in  the  protoplasm  and 
that  this  substance  is  somewhat  stable,  being 
broken  down  again  only  gradually  unless  a  second 
stimulus  intervenes,  but  when  the  substance  de¬ 
composes  or  is  otherwise  modified,  there  results 
a  new  sort  of  response  on  the  part  of  the  proto¬ 
plasm.  Or,  one  may  conceive  of  the  effect  of  the 
first  stimulus  as  being  purely  physical  in  nature, 
analogous  to  the  change  or  “set”  that  takes  place 
in  metals  when  subjected  to  long  mechanical 
strain.  At  any  rate,  whatever  be  the  real  nature 
of  this  phenomenon,  protoplasm  has  the  property 
of  recording  in  its  structure  the  effects  of  a  stimu¬ 
lus  and  by  this  modifying  a  future  reaction  to  a 
second  stimulus  of  the  same  or  different  sort. 
Nervous  matter  differs  from  ordinary  protoplasm 
in  that  it  has  this  property  more  highly  developed; 
its  reactions  are  the  same  in  kind but  much  great¬ 
er  in  degree  than  are  those  of  ordinary  proto¬ 
plasm.  That  such  a  phenomenon  is  not  limited  to 
animals,  is  seen  in  a  case  well  known  to  botanists, 
but  which  always  arouses  much  interest  in  the 
mind  of  the  observer.  There  is  a  notorious  plant, 
called  the  “Venus  Flytrap,”  which  is  carnivorous 
in  habit,  feeding  upon  flies  and  other  insects  that 
it  catches  for  food.  Its  leaves  have  their  tips  modi¬ 
fied  into  two  flaps  hinged  at  the  midrib,  and  pro¬ 
vided  with  a  marginal  row  of  spines  and  with  a 
half-dozen  or  so  sensitive  hairs  on  the  upper  sur¬ 
face.  When  one  of  these  hairs  is  touched  no  re¬ 
sponse  is  provoked,  but  a  second  stroke  upon  the 
same  or  a  neighboring  hair  of  the  same  leaf  results 

[108] 


The  Embryology  of  the  Mind 


in  the  instant  closing  of  the  leafy  flaps  like  the 
jaws  of  a  steel  trap.  In  1892,  MacFarlane,  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  recorded  the  inter¬ 
esting  observation  that  if  the  second  stimulus  fol¬ 
lowed  the  first  within  three  minutes  the  trap  was 
sprung  instantly,  but  that  if  more  than  three  min¬ 
utes  intervened,  no  response  followed  the  second 
stimulus.  In  short,  the  effect  of  the  first  stimulus 
persists  for  only  three  minutes  or  less.  Now,  this 
phenomenon  of  summation  of  stimuli  is  clearly 
a  primitive  sort  of  memory,  and  one  is  justified 
in  saying  that  this  plant  has  a  “ 'memory”  three 
minutes  long.  In  other  words,  generalized  proto¬ 
plasm  has  not  only  sensitivity  but  also  memory, 
and  it  would  appear  that  specialized  protoplasm 
also  has  this  same  property.  In  a  general  way  this 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  a  muscle  repeatedly  exer¬ 
cised  in  the  performance  of  a  certain  kind  of  work, 
not  only  grows  in  size,  possibly  a  more  or  less  di¬ 
rect  response,  but  it  also  becomes  more  skilful, 
that  is,  it  contracts  more  rapidly  and  accurately 
in  response  to  the  stimulus.  That  this  power  of 
registering  past  experiences  is  more  highly  de¬ 
veloped  in  nerve  cells  than  in  other  kinds  is  an  ex¬ 
ample  of  the  differentiation  that  always  accom¬ 
panies  the  physiological  division  of  labor.  The 
training  of  voluntary  muscles  that  comes  from 
long  practice  in  walking,  piano-playing,  shooting 
of  fire  arms,  archery,  ball-pitching,  talking,  etc.,  is 
to  be  accounted  for  on  the  basis  of  this  “organic 
memory,”  as  Hering  calls  it,  located  in  the  mus¬ 
cles  and  nerve  cells. 


[109] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

But  one  need  not  look  only  to  the  adult  animal 
to  observe  this  phenomenon.  The  developing  em¬ 
bryo  displays  it  at  all  stages  and  in  all  its  parts . 
Indeed,  development  itself  has  been  explained  as 
a  process  of  organic  memory,  and  heredity,  on  this 
view,  is  simply  the  recollection  by  the  embryo  of 
processes  undergone  at  the  corresponding  stage 
in  the  development  of  its  ancestors.  This  idea  may 
at  first  glance  seem  absurd  or  far-fetched,  but  the 
more  closely  it  is  examined  the  more  fundamental 
does  the  conception  appear  to  be. 

This  fundamental  power  of  all  protoplasm,  the 
ability  to  store  up  for  a  time  the  effects  of  former 
stimuli,  present  to  a  greater  degree  in  the  highly 
differentiated  matter  of  the  nerve-cells,  leads  to 
that  development  of  memory  in  the  latter  as  the 
result  of  which  associations  are  formed  between 
the  effects  of  different  or  successive  stimuli;  in 
short,  it  results  in  the  production  of  that  phenom¬ 
enon  which  is  termed  “associative  memory”  As¬ 
sociative  memory  is  certainly  present  in  all  the 
higher  vertebrates,  and  is  probably  to  be  found 
in  lower  vertebrates  and  the  higher  invertebrates 
as  well.  The  reproductive  cells  of  the  higher  ani¬ 
mals  are  endowed  with  protoplasmic  and  organic 
memory,  and  if  they  do  not  exhibit  associative 
memory,  at  least  the  embryos  or  larvae  of  some 
forms  sooner  or  later  in  their  development  do  pos¬ 
sess  the  power  of  forming  associations.  At  any 
rate  all  must  agree  that  the  human  infant  very 
early  displays  this  power. 

The  step  from  associative  memory  to  conscious 

[110] 


The  Embryology  of  the  Mind 

memory  is  a  short  one ;  whether  it  has  been  taken 
by  the  lower  animals  it  is  hard  to  decide,  but  that 
higher  animals  and  infants  possess  it  cannot  be 
denied.  Professor  Jennings,  of  Johns  Hopkins 
University,  has  devoted  a  great  deal  of  time  and 
study  to  the  behavior  of  the  lower  organisms.  He 
has  found,  for  example,  that  when  the  unicellular 
P aramecium  in  swimming  about  in  a  dish  of  water 
comes  into  contact  with  an  obstruction  or  with 
some  irritating  substance,  its  behavior  is  such  that 
one  may  term  it  a  process  of  trial  and  error.  In 
other  words,  Jennings  finds  that  under  the  circum¬ 
stances  cited,  Paramecium  backs  away  a  short  dis¬ 
tance,  rolls  over  on  its  dorsal  side,  and  starts  off 
in  a  new  direction.  There  is  here  involved  a  long 
series  of  reflexes,  such  as  the  stopping  of  the  mo¬ 
tion  of  its  minute  hair-like  organs  of  locomotion, 
and  then  the  reversal  of  the  direction  of  their  beat¬ 
ing,  followed  by  a  second  pause  and  then  the  re¬ 
sumption  of  the  stroke  in  such  a  manner  as  to  drive 
the  animal  forward  again.  If  this  effort  fails  to 
eliminate  the  obstruction  or  irritation  from  the 
path  of  the  creature,  the  process  is  repeated  again 
and  again  until  finally  a  path  is  found  along  which 
it  is  able  to  move  without  let  or  hindrance.  To  the 
observer,  this  behavior  of  Paramecium  may  ap¬ 
pear  purposive  or  intelligent,  but  further  investi¬ 
gation  shows  that  the  reaction  is,  for  the  most 
part,  at  least,  a  fixed  one,  determined  by  the  or¬ 
ganization  of  the  animal.  Jennings  and  others 
have  carried  out  this  line  of  study  with  worms, 
starfishes,  crayfish,  lobsters,  crabs  and  their  rela- 

[  111  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

tives,  insects  and  molluscs,  as  well  as  with  various 
vertebrates  such  as  fishes,  frogs,  turtles,  birds  and 
mammals.  In  all  these  forms  it  has  been  found 
that  the  response  of  the  animal  to  a  new  condition 
is  not  at  first  really  purposive  or  intelligent,  but 
rather  a  method  of  trial  and  error. 

With  repeated  trials,  however,  the  animal  grad¬ 
ually  “learns,”  as  it  is  commonly  said,  to  eliminate 
the  useless  responses,  and  makes  only  those  ef¬ 
forts  that  are  successful.  In  other  words,  through 
the  memory  of  the  useful  responses  and  the  elimi¬ 
nation  of  the  useless  ones  the  response  of  the  or¬ 
ganism  becomes  apparently  purposive  or,  as  is 
said,  intelligent.  Intelligence ,  then ,  is  a  combina¬ 
tion  of  differential  sensitivity ,  reflex  or  instinctive 
reaction ,  and  associative  memory  with  the  process 
of  trial  and  error.  A  single  example  of  an  experi¬ 
ment  of  the  sort  indicated  may  be  cited,  and  that 
with  an  animal  usually  considered  slow  and  stu¬ 
pid.  Yerkes,  when  at  Harvard,  studied  many  such 
cases,  but  the  turtle  suits  the  purpose  very  well. 
As  is  well  known  this  animal  “is  extremely  slug¬ 
gish  in  its  movements.  The  impulse  or  incentive 
used  to  get  the  animal  to  work  was  that  of  escape. 
Instinctively  the  animal  attempts  to  hide  in  some 
dark  secluded  place  and  will  try  to  escape  from 
confinement  and  go  towards  such  a  place.  This 
combinationservesverywellforamotive.  .  .  .  The 
maze  used  consisted  of  a  simple  box  3  feet  long, 
2  feet  wide,  and  10  inches  deep.  It  was  divided 
into  4  portions  by  partitions  10  inches  deep.  At 
different  points  in  the  partitions  holes  4  inches 

[112] 


The  Embryology  of  the  Mind 

long  and  2  inches  deep  were  cut.  This  permitted 
the  passage  of  the  animal.  After  passing  through 
the  last  partition  the  animal  could  get  to  its  dark¬ 
ened  nest  of  wet  grass.  A  small  speckled  turtle 
learned  this  maze  as  follows:  After  wandering 
about  constantly  for  35  minutes,  it  chanced  to 
find  the  nest,  into  which  it  immediately  crawled 
and  remained  there  until  taken  out  2  hours  later. 
Experiments  were  made  every  two  hours.  On  the 
second  trial  the  nest  was  reached  in  15  minutes. 
There  was  much  less  wandering.  The  time  for  the 
third  trial  was  5  minutes;  for  the  fourth,  3  min¬ 
utes  and  30  seconds ;  during  the  first  three  trials 
the  course  taken  was  so  tortuous  that  records  of  it 
were  hard  to  obtain.  There  was  an  aimless  wan¬ 
dering  from  point  to  point  within  each  space,  and 
from  space  to  space.  After  the  third  trial  the  route 
became  more  direct.  The  tenth  trial  was  made  in 
3  minutes  and  5  seconds,  with  only  two  mistakes 
in  turning.  The  time  of  the  twentieth  trial  was  45 
seconds;  that  of  the  thirtieth  40  seconds.  In  this 
case  the  course  was  direct,  as  was  also  true  in  the 
case  of  the  fiftieth  trip,  which  was  made  in  35  sec¬ 
onds.”  (Quoted  from  Watson’s  “Animal  Beha¬ 
vior,”  p.  195.) 

Any  one  seeing  the  turtle  perform  only  for  the 
fiftieth  time  would  have  said  that  it  displayed 
considerable  intelligence  or  at  least  that  its  move¬ 
ments  in  getting  to  the  nest  of  wet  grass  were  all 
purposive.  Indeed,  they  were  such,  but  that  con¬ 
dition  had  been  arrived  at  only  as  the  result  of 
trial  and  error,  with  the  elimination  of  the  useless 

[113] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

movements  and  the  recollection  of  the  ones  useful 
to  attain  the  end  sought.  Porter’s  work  with  the 
English  sparrow  and  other  birds,  Cole’s  study  of 
the  raccoon,  Thorndike’s  investigation  of  the  be¬ 
havior  of  cats,  dogs,  and  monkeys,  to  cite  only  a 
few  well  known  examples,  all  show  the  same  thing. 
Every  observant  parent  knows  that  this  is  also 
true  of  infants.  A  baby  lying  in  its  crib  reaches 
for  the  moon  whose  shining  face  it  sees  through 
the  open  window,  or  for  a  brightly  colored  object 
on  the  opposite  wall  of  the  room,  until  by  repeated 
trials  and  failures,  and  a  few  trials  and  successes, 
it  learns  to  appreciate  distance  and  the  length  of 
its  arms.  It  pops  into  its  mouth  all  sorts  of  things 
pleasant  or  unpleasant,  until  it  learns  to  know 
those  which  produce  agreeable  sensatioins  and 
those  which  are  disagreeable.  The  very  act  of  put¬ 
ting  things  into  its  mouth  is  at  first  imperfect ;  the 
objects  hit  the  cheek  or  chin  or  nose,  rather  than 
the  mouth,  and  it  is  only  by  repeated  efforts  that 
the  baby  learns  how  to  use  its  body  properly.  This 
is  the  same  process  of  trial  and  error  found  in  the 
dog,  turtle,  earthworm,  or  paramecium. 

An  animal  in  the  course  of  time  has  many  dif¬ 
ferent  experiences  which  are  recorded  in  its  memo¬ 
ry;  gradually  similar  experiences  are  associated, 
probably  through  the  formation  of  brain  paths, 
so  that  they  tend  to  produce  similar  motor  reac¬ 
tions.  Many  students  of  animal  psychology  think 
that  the  animal  is  strictly  circumscribed  by  his  ex¬ 
periences,  that  he  cannot  anticipate  to  any  extent 
what  may  happen  if  the  circumstances  are  not 

[  H4] 


The  Embryology  of  the  Mind 

very  much  like  those  already  familiar.  In  other 
words,  the  animal  is  not  capable  of  forming  a 
concept ,  a  generalized  symbol  of  one  experience, 
and  of  using  it  to  forecast  another  event.  In  him 
associative  memory  and  intelligence  eventuate  in¬ 
to  a  recept.  Thus,  Baldwin  says  that  “a  dog  has 
a  recept  of  the  whip ;  so  far  as  whips  are  not  too 
different  from  one  another,  the  dog  will  act  in  the 
same  way  toward  all  of  them.”  This  is  therefore 
reason  of  a  certain  sort,  but  not  the  abstract  rea¬ 
son  of  which  man  is  capable.  It  is  an  intelligent 
use  of  associative  memor}r  and  the  results  of  trial 
and  error  in  experience.  It  is  certainly  the  type 
of  reason  exhibited  by  the  child  in  its  earlier  years. 

But  the  child  very  early  learns,  in  imitation  of 
his  elders,  to  form  symbols  that  stand  for  gener¬ 
alizations  of  his  experiences,  which  usually  take 
the  form  of  words.  To  quote  again  from  Bald¬ 
win:  “He  does  not  have,  like  the  brute,  to  wait  for 
successive  experiences  of  like  objects  to  impress 
themselves  upon  them ;  but  he  goes  out  toward  the 
new,  expecting  it  to  be  like  the  old,  and  so  acting 
as  to  anticipate  it.  He  thus  falls  naturally  into 
general  ways  of  acting  which  it  is  the  function  of 
experience  to  refine  and  distinguish.  He  seems  to 
have  more  of  the  higher  sort  of  what  is  called 
apperception >  as  opposed  to  the  more  concrete  and 
accidental  association  of  ideas.  He  gets  concepts, 
as  opposed  to  the  recepts  of  the  animals.  With  this 
goes  the  development  of  speech,  which  some  psy¬ 
chologists  consider  the  source  of  all  man’s  superi¬ 
ority  over  the  animals.  Words  become  symbols  of 

[115] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

a  highly  abstract  sort  for  certain  classes  of  experi¬ 
ences;  and  moreover,  through  speech  a  means  of 
social  communication  is  afforded  by  which  the  de¬ 
velopment  of  the  individual  is  enormously  ad¬ 
vanced.” 

These  facts  show  plainly  that  abstract  reason¬ 
ing  is  a  gradual  acquirement;  the  higher  animals 
and  the  very  young  child  rise  through  associative 
memory  and  intelligence  to  what  may  be  termed 
receptive  reason .  But  here  they  part  company,  the 
child  emerging  into  conceptive  or  abstract  reason¬ 
ing ,  to  which  probably  no  other  animal  has  at¬ 
tained  because  it  has  not  developed  speech.  Conk¬ 
lin  puts  the  situation  in  these  words,  “in  his  de¬ 
velopment  the  human  individual  passes  through 
the  more  primitive  stages  of  intelligence,  repre¬ 
sented  by  the  lower  animals  .  .  .  ;  the  germ-cells 
and  embryo  represent  only  the  stage  of  reflex  be¬ 
havior,  to  these  trial  and  error  and  associative 
memory  are  added  in  the  infant  and  young  child, 
and  to  these  the  application  of  past  experiences  to 
new  conditions,  or  reason,  is  added  in  later  years.” 

There  is  no  effect  without  a  cause ;  an  organism 
whether  a  paramecium  or  a  man  never  displays  an 
activity  of  any  sort  without  there  being  some 
stimulus  to  call  it  forth.  These  stimuli  may  arise 
either  outside  or  inside  the  organism.  Paramecium 
and  the  earthworm,  for  example,  like  the  germ- 
cells  and  embryos  of  higher  forms  are  limited  in 
the  manner  of  their  responses  by  the  relative  sim¬ 
plicity  or  homogeneity  of  their  organization.  With 
increased  complexity  of  organization  there  comes 

[116] 


The  Embryology  of  the  Mind 

increased  possibility  of  variation  in  the  response 
to  a  stimulus.  In  the  simpler  organisms,  most, 
though  not  all  of  the  stimuli,  are  extrinsic — ener¬ 
gy  changes  in  the  surrounding  medium,  and  the 
responses  are  mostly  direct.  In  more  complex 
forms  with  associative  memory,  an  extrinsic  stimu¬ 
lus  may  be  but  the  first  in  a  long  cumulative  series, 
and  the  response  may  be  far  from  direct.  With  the 
summation  of  stimuli  there  is  introduced  the  pos¬ 
sibility  of  modifying  by  later  stimuli  the  effects  of 
a  previous  one.  This  may  occur  in  any  one  or  more 
of  several  ways.  Thus  Whitman  noted  that  a  leech 
which  normally  hides  away  in  dark  situations 
under  stones  or  chunks,  will  leave  the  shade  even 
for  bright  sunlight,  if  it  be  hungry  and  the  source 
of  its  favorite  food,  a  turtle,  be  present.  The 
stimulus  of  hunger  modifies  or  nullifies  the  effect 
of  the  sunlight  and  completely  changes  the  crea¬ 
ture’s  behavior.  Hunger  is  one  of  the  very  strong¬ 
est  stimuli,  and  yet  in  the  case  of  the  mud-puppy 
Whitman  found  that  fear  would  so  completely 
nullify  the  stimulus  of  hunger  that  the  animal 
would  starve  to  death  even  in  the  midst  of  plenty  of 
the  most  tempting  food  rather  than  risk  the  sight 
of  man.  In  short,  conflicting  stimuli,  internal  or 
external,  may  modify  behavior.  The  formation  of 
a  habit,  either  voluntarily  or  under  compulsion,  as 
in  the  training  of  a  dog  or  the  education  of  a  child, 
may  limit  the  behavior  to  a  single  sort  of  reaction 
under  circumstances  where  the  particular  stimu¬ 
lus  under  other  conditions  might  result  in  any  one 
of  several  responses.  For  example,  the  starfish  or- 

[  117  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 


dinarily  uses  any  one  of  its  five  arms  in  righting 
itself  when  it  has  been  turned  over  on  its  back ;  but 
Jennings  found  that  one  which  had  been  com¬ 
pelled  habitually  to  use  one  certain  arm  for  this 
purpose,  afterwards  continued  to  use  that  arm, 
though  otherwise  free  to  employ  the  other  four. 
Natural  selection  undoubtedly  has  operated  fre¬ 
quently  in  nature  to  compel  the  performance  of 
an  act  in  a  certain  way  and  thus  to  form  a  habit, 
until  now  the  behavior  of  the  animal  is  stereo¬ 
typed.  Such  cases  are  the  “lying  low”  or  “playing 
’possum”  when  pursued  or  attacked,  displayed  by 
familiar  species  of  both  vertebrates  and  inverte¬ 
brates.  On  the  other  hand,  associative  memory 
and  intelligence  may  result  in  the  modification  of 
behavior  so  that  instead  of  making  a  response  of 
immediate  though  minor  importance,  the  organ¬ 
ism  may  react  in  a  way  that  is  of  little  or  no  im¬ 
mediate  advantage  but  of  great  future  impor¬ 
tance.  Thus  where  there  is  possible  a  variety  of 
responses,  intelligent  choice  or  will  determines 
which  reaction  will  be  called  forth  by  one  or  a 
series  of  stimuli.  Thus  with  will  comes  freedom  of 
action,  not  that  one  ever  acts  without  a  stimulus, 
an  impossible  hypothesis,  but  that  through  intelli¬ 
gence  and  reason  intrinsic  stimuli  are  introduced 
which  may  be  more  potent  than  the  original  ex¬ 
ternal  stimulus  of  the  series.  Thus,  individually 
as  well  as  racially,  we  have  passed  from  the  fixed 
or  automatic  reaction  of  the  germ-cells  or  proto¬ 
zoan  by  gradual  steps  to  ec  freedom  of  the  will  ” 
that  is  to  intelligent ,  reasonable  action. 

[118] 


The  Embryology  of  the  Mind 

And  finally,  the  climax  of  the  whole  process  is 
consciousness ,  the  awareness  of  our  being.  This, 
too,  is  developed  gradually  in  the  individual;  from 
a  state  of  unconsciousness  in  the  embryo  there  is  a 
transition  in  infancy  and  childhood  into  conscious¬ 
ness.  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  consider  the  nature 
of  consciousness,  whether  it  be  merely  the  sum 
total  of  all  the  previously  mentioned  processes,  or 
whether,  like  the  relation  of  water  to  hydrogen 
and  oxygen,  it  be  a  new  product  or  synthesis  of 
the  others  which  have  preceded  it.  Obviously  there 
is  also  no  need  to  argue  with  that  school  of  psy¬ 
chologists  who  maintain  that  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  consciousness!  The  point  is  simply  this,  that, 
granted  the  existence  of  what  is  commonly  termed 
consciousness,  or,  in  common  terminology,  the 
soul,  it,  too,  has  a  period  of  development  and  only 
gradually  attains  maturity;  it  has  been  suddenly 
thrust  upon  or  into  neither  the  individual  nor  the 
race.  It  may  be  interesting  to  note  that  the  sup¬ 
posed  seat  of  consciousness  is  in  the  nerve  cells  of 
the  cortex  of  the  cerebral  hemispheres,  and  that 
these  cells  never  undergo  a  division  after  the  birth 
of  the  child,  but  persist  throughout  his  entire  life. 
Can  this  fact  furnish  an  explanation  of  the  con¬ 
tinuity  of  consciousness }  or,  in  other  words,  our 
sense  of  our  own  continuous  personality ? 

In  conclusion,  we  would  reaffirm  the  parallelism 
in  development  between  mind  and  body;  what¬ 
ever  one  may  conceive  the  ultimate  relationship 
between  the  two  to  be,  this  much  is  sure :  they  both 
develop  concomitantly  out  of  the  egg.  Both  are  the 

[119] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

products  of  natural  processes  and  there  is  no  more 
reason  for  supposing  a  miraculous  origin  in  the 
one  case  than  in  the  other .  This  conclusion,  of 
course,  is  fraught  with  momentous  practical  and 
philosophical  significance,  and  yet  it  has  rarely 
been  given  the  consideration  it  deserves.  As  Conk¬ 
lin  has  put  it : 

“We  know  that  the  greatest  men  of  the  race 
were  once  babies,  embiyos,  germ-cells,  and  that 
the  greatest  minds  in  human  history  were  once  the 
minds  of  babies,  embryos,  and  germ-cells,  and  yet 
this  stupendous  fact  has  had  little  influence  on 
our  beliefs  as  to  the  nature  of  man  and  of  mind. 
We  rarely  think  of  Plato  and  Aristotle,  of  Shakes¬ 
peare  and  Newton,  of  Pasteur  and  Darwin,  ex¬ 
cept  in  their  full  epiphany,  and  yet  we  know  that 
when  each  of  these  was  a  child  he  ‘thought  as  a 
child  and  spake  as  a  child,’  and  when  he  was  a 
germ-cell  he  behaved  as  a  germ-cell.” 

To  argue  that  both  the  body  and  the  mind  de¬ 
velop  from  the  germ-cell  is  quite  a  different  thing 
from  arguing  that  matter  and  mind  are  identical . 
The  germ-cell  is  just  as  truly  living  matter ,  in¬ 
deed,  the  fertilized  egg  is  just  as  truly  a  living 
being  as  is  the  adult  man  who  develops  out  of  it. 
To  associate  the  beginnings  of  mind  with  the 
germ-cell,  to  correlate  its  gradual  development 
with  that  of  the  body,  is  to  go  no  farther  than  we 
do  in  associating  the  mind  with  the  body  of  the 
adult,  a  postulate  universally  accepted.  Mind  is  a 
function  of  living  matter .  This  in  turn  is  not  an 
affirmation  that  bodily  structure  causes  the  mind ; 

[120] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 


nor  on  the  other  hand  that  the  mind  causes  the 
body.  Both  are  fundamental  'properties  of  living 
matter  inherent  in  its  organization. 


[121] 


PART  TWO 

PHILOSOPHY 


CHAPTER  IX 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  ULTIMATE 
CAUSATION 


It  is  not  an  uncommon  thing  for  students  of  biolo¬ 
gy  to  hear  it  stated  that  the  doctrines  of  that 
science  are  “materialistic”  in  their  implications. 
No  one  can  deny  that  many  biologists  are  or  have 
been  materialists  in  their  philosophical  views,  but 
that  a  larger  proportion  of  them  are  so  inclined 
than  are  the  devotees  of  other  sciences,  or  of  other 
professions  in  life,  it  would  be  difficult,  if  not  im¬ 
possible  to  prove.  The  trouble  lies  in  that  wide¬ 
spread  confusion  of  mind  as  the  result  of  which 
no  distinction  is  made  between  scientific  mechan¬ 
ism  and  philosophic  materialism.  The  limitations 
of  the  scientific  method  are  such  that  it  can  deal 
only  with  the  data  determinable  through  the  senses ; 
only  those  things  which  are  ponderable  or  meas¬ 
urable  fall  within  its  purview.  It  must,  therefore, 
seek  all  explanations  in  terms  of  matter  and 
energy.  Its  explanations  therefore  are  all  proxi¬ 
mate;  it  does  not,  it  cannot,  deal  with  ultimate 
causes.  It  is  the  philosopher,  therefore,  and  not 
the  scientist,  or  at  least  the  scientist  only  when  he 
goes  beyond  the  confines  of  his  field  into  philoso¬ 
phy,  who  can  deal  with  the  question  of  ultimate 
causation. 


[125] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  many  have  been 
misled  by  the  arguments  of  philosophizing  scien¬ 
tists,  like  Haeckel,  into  the  belief  that  because 
biologists  find  a  human  mechanism ,  therefore  all 
of  man’s  personality  is  explicable  in  the  terms  of 
physics  and  chemistry.  It  is  true  that  individual 
human  behavior  has  a  basis  directly  or  indirectly 
in  energy  set  free  by  the  chemical  processes  in¬ 
volved  in  the  oxidation  of  food  or  of  the  living 
substance  itself  in  the  cells  of  the  brain  and  mus¬ 
cles.  It  is  true  as  stated  more  or  less  distinctly 
in  every  biological  textbook  that  man  is  an  organ¬ 
ism  and  like  other  organisms  is  made  up  of  a  large 
series  of  mutually  dependent  parts;  that  these 
parts  or  organs  are  associated  in  a  complex  man¬ 
ner  for  the  performance  of  their  various  functions, 
and  yet  that  they  are  all  unified  in  such  a  way 
as  to  constitute  a  persistent  integrated  whole.  It 
is  also  a  fact  that  the  organism  differs  from  non¬ 
living  things  in  the  matter  of  its  chemical  com¬ 
position,  not  that  it  contains  within  itself  any  ele¬ 
ment  not  occurring  elsewhere  in  nature,  but  that 
these  elements  are  arranged  in  molecules  of  a  com¬ 
plexity  unknown  in  the  inorganic  world.  The  liv¬ 
ing  individual  is  still  further  characterized  by  the 
manner  in  which  it  increases  in  size  and  bulk,  tak¬ 
ing  materials  unlike  itself,  breaking  them  up  into 
simple  chemical  compounds  out  of  which  it  manu¬ 
factures  the  very  complex  molecules  of  living 
matter  that  are  added  to  those  already  present 
within  it,  not  by  accretion  on  the  outside  as  in  the 
case  of  inorganic  crystals,  but  by  distributing 

[126] 


The  Problem  of  Ultimate  Causation 

these  new  molecules  among  the  older  ones  already 
composing  its  structure.  This  is  termed  growth  by 
intussusception  and  is  one  of  the  two  or  three  ab¬ 
solutely  distinguishing  characteristics  of  proto¬ 
plasm.  Moreover,  the  behavior  of  the  organism  as 
a  whole  and  of  its  individual  parts  as  well  is  in¬ 
tegrated,  at  least  in  the  higher  animals  and  man, 
by  means  of  a  unique  mechanism,  partly  composed 
of  theso-calledFftdomWglandswith  their  peculiar 
chemical  products,  the  hormones  and  chalones, 
and  partly  of  that  complex  arrangement  of  cells 
and  fibers  known  as  the  nervous  system.  And 
finally,  the  organic  individual  is  governed  by  such 
physical  laws  as  that  of  gravitation  in  just  the 
same  way  as  the  non-living  stone ;  it  is  an  internal 
combustion  engine  which  derives  its  energy  direct¬ 
ly  from  the  fuel  supplied  it  and  indirectly  from 
the  sun’s  rays. 

A  consideration  of  such  facts  as  these  has  often 
misled  those  without  a  clear  insight,  into  the  philo¬ 
sophic  belief  that  every  living  thing,  including 
man  both  as  to  his  body  and  his  mind,  may  be  ex¬ 
plained  in  terms  of  purely  physical  or  chemical 
laws.  The  ideas  of  the  conservation  of  matter  and 
energy  have  been  invoked  to  support  the  view  that 
in  man  the  only  forces  involved  are  the  ordinary 
ones  of  the  physicist  and  the  chemist,  which  there 
act,  react,  and  interact  upon  one  another  and  upon 
the  environment,  modifying  one  another  in  vari¬ 
ous  ways,  assisting  or  hindering  as  the  case  may 
be,  or  even  being  changed  from  one  form  to  an¬ 
other,  without  loss  or  addition.  The  idea  is  insisted 

[  127] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

upon  frequently  that  accurate  accounting  for  all 
the  potential  energy  stored  up  within  the  organ¬ 
ism  or  in  the  food  which  it  assimilates,  and  for  all 
the  kinetic  energy  which  it  expends  in  the  func¬ 
tioning  of  its  muscular,  glandular,  nervous,  and 
other  organ-systems,  would  reveal  an  exact  bal¬ 
ance  between  the  two  sides  of  the  ledger.  In  short, 
many  students  of  biological  phenomena  are  led 
into  pure  philosophical  materialism y  because  on 
the  surface  of  things,  the  organic  mechanism 
seems  self-sufficient.  It  appears  to  be  complete  in 
itself,  to  run  entirely  by  means  only  of  physical 
forces,  and  to  leave  no  room  nor  necessity  for  a 
“soul.”  Individuality  seems  to  be  a  phenomenon 
dependent  upon  conditions  determinable,  like  or¬ 
dinary  physical  or  chemical  phenomena,  by  resi¬ 
dent  forces;  it  does  not  seem  to  “require  the  pres¬ 
ence  or  action  of  a  non-perceptual  agent.”  But 
note  carefully  that  such  a  conclusion  is  a  philo¬ 
sophic ,  not  a  scientific  one.  It  is  our  purpose  now 
to  inquire  whether  the  data  of  biology  render  such 
a  conclusion  in  philosophy  inevitable. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  it  was  stated  that  man, 
at  least,  is  possessed  of  self-consciousness.  This 
consciousness  is  not  a  simple  thing  but  may  be 
analyzed  into  a  series  of  phenomena  that  may  be 
termed  “states”  or  “moments”  of  consciousness, 
perceived  directly  or  indirectly  by  means  of  the 
senses  of  touch,  sight,  hearing,  etc.  These  units  of 
consciousness  follow  one  another  like  the  waves 
of  the  sea  and  by  them  the  individual  is  made 
aware  of  all  those  events  which  together  constitute 

[128] 


The  Problem  of  Ultimate  Causation 


his  life  experiences.  We  are  each  aware  of  these 
things  in  ourselves  which  we  may  describe  to  oth¬ 
ers,  but  the  true  explanation  of  them  and  of  con¬ 
sciousness  itself  is  perhaps  not  possible  to  finite 
minds.  We  cannot  be  sure,  in  a  philosophic  sense, 
of  the  existence  and  nature  of  consciousness  in 
other  minds  than  our  own,  except  as  they  are  mani¬ 
fested  through  the  activity  of  those  minds  in  the 
form  of  language,  gesture,  or  other  bodily  func¬ 
tion.  This  gives  a  validity  to  the  common  philo¬ 
sophic  statement  that  the  inner  life  of  each  indi¬ 
vidual  is  non-perceptual;  to  the  fact  of  its  non- 
perceptuality  to  others  is  due  the  seeming  unreal- 
itv  of  the  soul  of  man. 

It  cannot  be  stated  too  emphatically  nor  too 
often  that  all  the  data  of  science  are  those  of 
conscious  experience .  These  data  may  be  divided 
into  two  chief  classes : 

1.  Spatial  phenomena j  those  experiences  which 
concern  physical  phenomena,  the  properties  of 
matter  and  energy. 

2.  AT on-spatial  phenomena ,  those  experiences 
which  concern  such  apparently  immaterial  phe¬ 
nomena  as  thought  and  emotion. 


But  while  consciousness  mav  be  analvzed  into  a 
series  of  successive  “states”  or  “moments,”  its 
most  characteristic  property  is  not  the  separate¬ 
ness  of  these  phenomena,  but  rather  their  integra¬ 
tion  into  a  continuous  and  consistent  whole.  Our 
conscious  existence  flows  on  like  a  river  down 
which  we  float  as  in  a  drifting  boat,  and  is  not  like 
the  ties  of  a  railroad  track  along  which  one  walks 


[129] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

with  irregular  steps.  There  is  something  that 
binds  together,  relates  and  controls  the  states  of 
consciousness  in  each  individual,  something  that 
acts  as  a  committee  of  the  whole.  This  something 
is  the  ego ,  the  will,  or  the  soul  of  man,  as  one  may 
choose  to  name  it.  It  is  moreover  something  which 
is  not  bound  bv  chronological  necessitv  but  which 
often  removes  past  experiences  from  their  exact 
time  relationships,  leaping  from  point  to  point  in  * 
time  often  most  erratically,  or  so  it  seems  to  one 
who  does  not  carefully  investigate  the  underlying 
psychological  principles.  This  power  of  the  ego  to 
dislocate  the  time  order  of  past  experiences  is  the 
most  convincing  evidence  of  the  power  of  the  will ; 
it  proves  that  freedom  of  the  will  which  is  one  of 
man’s  most  priceless  possessions. 

Although  we  are  accustomed  to  think  of  mind 
and  body  as  separate  entities,  correlated  or  asso¬ 
ciated  to  be  sure,  vet  clearly  distinguishable  in 
thought,  it  is  impossible  to  find  scientific  evidence 
that  they  are  separable  in  reality.  Mental  states 
are  affected  by  physical  conditions,  just  as  bodily 
functions  are  affected.  The  health  of  the  liver 
colors  a  man’s  thoughts  just  as  surely  as  it  may 
jaundice  his  skin;  an  overfull  stomach  retards 
mental  activity  just  as  surely  as  a  burden  on  his 
shoulders  slows  down  a  man’s  steps.  A  blow  on 
the  head  may  temporarily  or  permanently  put  an 
end  to  all  determinable  mental  phenomena  just  as 
certainly  as  it  may  cause  the  appearance  of  a 
bump  on  the  scalp  or  a  fracture  of  the  skull.  From 
the  other  side,  certain  emotional  states  may  be 

[  130  ] 


The  Problem  of  Ultimate  Causation 

manifest  in  an  increased  rate  of  the  heart  beat  and 
the  consequent  flushing  of  the  face,  or  in  the  de¬ 
crease  in  the  glandular  secretions.  Protracted  ner¬ 
vous  strain  may  effect  the  retardation  of  the  di¬ 
gestive  function  and  the  elimination  from  the 
body  of  the  undigested  food,  just  as,  conversely, 
the  latter  condition,  when  brought  about  by  pure¬ 
ly  physical  means  may  hinder  the  flow  of  thought. 
In  short,  in  so  far  as  science  can  determine,  men¬ 
tal  states  are  subject  to  the  same  laws  of  cause 
and  effect  as  are  the  purely  bodily  functions.  This 
apparent  relation  of  the  body  and  the  ego  may  be 
expressed  by  a  mechanistic  formula,  in  which  we 
may  let  B  stand  for  body  and  ( e )  for  the  ego,  and 
the  formula  is  this:  B  (e) .  The  body  on  this  view, 
i.e.,  the  physical  part  of  the  human  personality  is 
the  fundamental  thing  and  conditions  the  ego,  or 
produces  it.  But  it  requires  no  great  amount  of 
analysis  for  a  biologist,  not  blinded  by  the  tenets 
of  materialistic  philosophy,  to  perceive  that  this 
formula  is  inadequate  to  express  all  the  relations 
between  mind  and  bodv  as  found  not  alone  in  man, 
but  in  nature  generally. 

The  behavior  of  an  organism,  at  least  in  the  case 
of  man,  depends  to  a  large  degree  upon  the  opera¬ 
tion  of  another  factor  that  has  not  so  far  lent  itself 
to  recognition  or  analysis  by  the  methods  of  the 
chemist  or  physicist.  It  has  none  of  the  properties 
of  matter,  it  cannot  be  measured  nor  weighed,  it 
occupies  no  dimensions  in  space;  like  the  geome¬ 
trician’s  point,  it  has  neither  length,  breadth,  nor 
thickness.  By  no  apparatus  of  the  physicist’s  de- 

[  131  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

vising  can  it  be  directly  transformed  into  heat, 
light,  electricity,  nor  any  other  form  of  physical 
energy.  And  yet  it  may  and  usually  does  so  modi¬ 
fy  an  organism’s  behavior  that  the  observer  is  un¬ 
able  to  foretell  from  a  minute  and  exhaustive 
knowledge  of  the  physical  make-up  and  processes 
of  that  organism  what  it  will  do  under  any  given 
set  of  physical  conditions.  The  ego  is  so  related  to 
the  body  and  its  activities  as  to  give  a  result  that 
may  be  wholly  different  from  that  which  would  be 
produced  under  the  same  antecedent  conditions 
without  consciousness.  Hit  a  ball  with  a  club,  and 
the  physicist,  from  data  concerned  with  the  weight, 
size,  form,  etc.,  of  club  and  ball,  with  the  angle  at 
which  the  two  come  into  contact,  etc.,  can  predict 
exactly  the  course  of  the  ball  through  the  air,  the 
distance  it  will  travel,  and  the  exact  point  at  which 
it  will  strike  the  ground.  Knowing  the  elasticity 
of  the  ball  and  the  resistance  of  the  ground  he  can 
determine  the  number  and  extent  of  the  bounds 
the  ball  will  make  before  coming  to  a  final  state 
of  rest. 

But  let  the  same  club  be  used  on  a  dog  or  man, 
and  the  results  cannot  be  so  calculated.  The  dog 
may  tuck  his  tail  between  his  legs  and  run  howl¬ 
ing  away,  or  he  may  cringe  and  whine,  and  at¬ 
tempt  to  lick  the  hand  of  the  one  who  struck  him, 
or  he  may  lay  bare  his  teeth,  and  spring  for  the 
throat  of  his  assailant.  Similar,  or  even  more  di¬ 
verse  results  may  follow  an  attack  upon  the  man: 
he  may  run  away,  plead  for  mercy,  return  the  at¬ 
tack  with  his  fists  or  a  stone  or  club,  or  he  may 

[132] 


The  Pkoblem  of  Ultimate  Causation 

draw  a  gun  and  kill  his  assailant.  Or,  again,  he 
may  run  away  only  to  return  another  day  when  he 
may  deal  with  his  opponent  in  a  more  effective 
way:  he  may  “take  the  law  into  his  own  hands,”  or 
he  may  appeal  to  constituted  authority  for  protec¬ 
tion  and  retribution.  The  differences  between  the 
behavior  of  the  ball  on  the  one  hand  and  that  of 
the  dog  or  man,  on  the  other,  are  due  entirely  to 
the  presence  of  consciousness,  and  of  the  ego  in 
the  latter  two. 

On  this  account  it  is  clear  that  the  mechanistic 
formula  is  inadequate  or  untrue,  and  must  be  re¬ 
placed  by  some  other  which  better  expresses  the 
facts.  Two  other  formulas  have  been  suggested  to 
express  the  patent  relationship  between  the  phys¬ 
ical  body  and  the  ego. 

1.  There  is  the  dualistic  formula  B  +  E,  where 
B  represents  the  body  or  physical  aspect  of  the 
organism’s  personality,  and  E  the  non-physical 
ego  or  will. 

2.  There  is  the  idealistic  formula  E  (b) ,  where 
E  represents  the  dominant  character  of  the  ego 
or  will,  and  ( b )  the  relation  to  it  of  the  physical 
body. 

These  three  formulae  put  before  us  the  three 
aspects  of  the  great  central  problem  of  philoso¬ 
phy,  the  problem  of  ultimate  reality.  We  are  en¬ 
tirely  and  far  beyond  the  limits  of  science.  The 
data  of  physical  science  are  entirely  inadequate 
for  its  solution;  we  are  in  a  realm  where  the  con¬ 
ditions  and  conclusions  cannot  be  found  in  the  re¬ 
lations  of  molecules,  atoms,  electrons,  radiant  en- 

[133] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

ergy,  heat,  light,  or  electricity.  No  conclusions  of 
science  are  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

We  must  now  consider  the  following  questions : 

1.  Is  the  materialistic  philosopher  correct  in  his 
statement  that  the  organism,  or  the  human  per¬ 
sonality,  if  one  wishes  to  limit  the  discussion  to 
man,  is  in  reality  but  the  expression  of  the  rela¬ 
tions  which  exist  among  a  mass  of  material  units, 
atoms,  electrons,  or  what  not,  which  have  an  exist¬ 
ence  independent  of  consciousness,  and  which  may 
produce  that  state  as  a  function  of  their  interac¬ 
tions  ?  In  short,  should  we  adopt  for  the  individual 
the  first  formula  B  (e)  ?  Or 

2.  Is  the  dualistic  philosopher  correct  in  his  as¬ 
sertion  that  human  individuality  is  composed  of 
two  coordinate  realities,  the  physical  body  and  the 
non-physical  ego,  which  we  may  not  only  distin¬ 
guish  in  our  thought,  but  which  really  are  sepa¬ 
rate  entities,  more  or  less  temporarily  united  or 
associated  in  the  human  organism?  Should  we 
therefore  accept  his  formula,  B  +  E  ?  Or, 

3.  Is  the  idealistic  philosopher  correct  in  his 
contention  that  the  individual  is  in  reality  a  non¬ 
physical  or  spiritual  entity,  an  ego  associated  with 
physical  manifestations?  Is  the  body  of  the  organ¬ 
ism  an  ideal  one,  though  none  the  less  real ,  a  mech¬ 
anism  by  means  of  which  the  ego  operates?  Is  the 
true  formula,  therefore,  E  (h)  ? 

These  are  questions  which  have  occupied  the 
attention  and  thought  of  philosophers  and  many 
men  eminent  in  science  for  several  hundred  years. 
Some  have  adopted  one  conclusion,  some  another, 

[  434  ] 


The  Problem  of  Ultimate  Causation 

but  since  the  time  of  Berkeley  (1685-1753)  there 
has  been  a  constantly  increasing  tendency  to  re¬ 
pudiate  the  materialistic  assumption  and  to  adopt 
the  conclusion  that  “in  ultimate  analysis  and  in 
reality  our  world  and  the  individual  is  spiritual.” 
As  Lloyd  Morgan  has  remarked :  “It  was  Berkeley 
who  knocked  the  bottom  out  of  materialism  as  a 
philosophy  so  that  no  amount  of  tinkering  can 
make  it  again  hold  water.” 

To  one  who  has  not  been  trained  to  think  deeply 
and  correctly  the  external  world  seems  to  be  made 
up  only  of  those  phenomena  perceived  by  the 
senses.  There  is  no  idea  that  sense-perceptions  may 
not  be  absolutely  accurate.  This  “common  sense” 
point  of  view  seems  to  be  entirely  adequate  for  the 
ordinary  situations  with  which  he  has  to  deal  and 
there  is  at  first  no  thought  of  anything  below  the 
surface  of  things.  Later,  the  student  learns  to  dis¬ 
tinguish  between  an  internal  and  an  external  reali¬ 
ty,  and  he  finally  comes  to  ask,  “How  much  can  I 
know  of  external  reality?”  When  this  stage  is 
reached,  the  student  discovers  that  his  knowledge 
of  the  “external”  world  comes  to  him  only  through 
the  physical  senses  of  touch,  taste,  smell,  hearing, 
sight,  etc.  In  other  words,  through  the  physio¬ 
logical  functioning  of  the  sense-organs  and  the 
psychological  processes  which  go  on  in  his  brain 
he  receives  his  “knowledge”  of  nature.  This  pro¬ 
cess  involves  three  steps : 

1.  The  stimulus  (the  object  in  the  external 
world)  ; 


[  135  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

2.  The  nerve  disturbance  (causedfby  the  stimu¬ 
lus)  ; 

3.  The  sensation  or  sense-impression  (the  re¬ 
sult  of  the  nerve  disturbance) . 

By  his  study  of  chemistry  and  physics  the  stu¬ 
dent  learns  that  “all  the  phenomena  of  the  exter¬ 
nal  world  may  be  reduced  to  or  expressed  in  terms  * 
of  atoms  or  electrons  in  motion,  rapidly  in  gases, 
less  so  in  liquids  and  still  less  so  in  solids ;  that  all 
chemical  change  involves  the  rearrangement  of 
atoms  and  finally  that  all  forms  of  energy  depend 
on  the  rapid  movement  of  atoms.  Moreover,  the 
physiologist  assures  him  that  these  assertions  hold 
true  for  the  living  as  well  as  for  the  lifeless.  Thus 
the  physical  (external)  universe  appears  to  be  a 
universe  of  atoms  or  electrons  in  motion”  (Neal) . 

So  far  the  student  is  perfectly  correct  in  his 
ideas  and  conclusions ;  he  has  arrived  at  the  scien¬ 
tific  mechanistic  interpretation  of  the  physical 
world,  an  interpretation  established  by  scientific 
data  and  universally  accepted  by  the  modem  * 
world.  “I ts  validity  as  a  scientific  hypothesis  stands 
unchallenged .  There  is  no  reason  whatever  to  be-  / 
lieve  that  in  principle  it  will  ever  be  overthrown.” 

But  the  sense  of  the  correctness  of  this  mechanistic 
principle  sometimes  becomes  so  strong  that  the 
student  is  tempted  to  carry  it  to  unwarranted 
lengths.  He  applies  the  hypothesis  to  mental  phe¬ 
nomena  and  concludes  that  consciousness  is  mere¬ 
ly  the  result  of  the  interaction  of  atoms  or  elec¬ 
trons  when  brought  together  in  certain  propor¬ 
tions  and  under  certain  conditions.  In  short,  he 

[136]  '  *f" 


The  Problem  of  Ultimate  Causation 

goes  beyond  demonstrable  facts  of  science  into  the 
realm  of  speculation,  where  the  modern  philoso¬ 
pher  is  not  able  to  follow  him.  He  concludes  that 
the  universe  is  in  reality  a  universe  of  atoms  and 
electrons  unrelated  to  consciousness  in  any  funda¬ 
mental  way.  He  thus  steps,  unconsciously  per¬ 
haps,  over  the  line  between  the  realm  of  the  mecha¬ 
nistic  scientist  into  that  of  the  materialistic  phi¬ 
losopher.  Let  us  see  whether  his  conclusions  are 
well  taken  and  solidly  supported  by  fact. 

Primarily  “the  data  of  science  are  phenomena 
of  consciousness.  For  anything  to  be  outside  of 
consciousness,  therefore,  is  to  be  unknown,  and 
hence  outside  of  the  field  of  science  which  deals 
with  the  known.  To  postulate  an  external  world 
of  atoms  and  electrons  independent  of — or  out¬ 
side  of — consciousness  is  to  postulate  an  unknow¬ 
able  world — a  metaphysical  world.  It  is  a  wholly 
erroneous  notion  that  this  conclusion  of  philoso¬ 
phy  involves  the  denial  of  an  external  world — 
the  permanent  possibility  of  sensation.”  (Neal) 
Thus,  “when  human  beings  speak — that  is,  when 
we  hear  certain  noises  which  we  associate  with 
ideas,  and  simultaneously  see  certain  motions  of 
lips  and  expressions  of  face — it  is  very  difficult  to 
suppose  that  what  we  hear  is  not  the  expression  of 
a  thought,  as  we  know  it  would  be  if  we  emitted 
the  same  sounds.  Of  course  similar  things  happen 
in  dreams,  where  we  are  mistaken  as  to  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  other  people.  But  dreams  are  more  or  less 
suggested  by  what  we  call  waking  life,  and  are 
capable  of  being  more  or  less  accounted  for  on 

[  137  ] 


Evolution  and  Chkistian  Faith 

scientific  principles  if  we  assume  that  there  is 
really  a  physical  world.  Thus  every  principle  of 
simplicity  urges  us  to  adopt  the  natural  view, 
that  there  really  are  objects  other  than  our  selves 
and  our  sense  data  which  have  an  existence  not  de¬ 
pendent  upon  our  perceiving  them.”  (Russell, 
“The  Problems  of  Philosophy,”  p.  37.) 

“There  is  indeed  (to  the  idealist  not  less  than  to 
the  realist)  an  external  world  which  is  the  cause 
of  our  ideas.  But  this  external  world  of  ours  must 
be  a  world  of  ideas — that  is,  if  it  is  like  our  ideas 
as  we  believe  it  is.  But  if  objects  in  this  external 
world  are  like  our  ideas ,  then  they  must  be  ideas. 
Therefore,  either  the  real  external  world  is  a  world 
of  ideas — an  outer  world  of  mind  which  each  of 
us  may  in  a  measure  comprehend  through  experi¬ 
ence,  or — so  far  as  it  is  external  and  real — it  is 
wholly  unknowable”  (Royce,92 ,vide  Neal) .  That 
the  world  of  science  is  withal  a  world  of  ideas  has 
been  appreciated  by  scientific  thinkers  scarcely 
less  than  by  philosophers. 

“Our  one  certainty  is  the  existence  of  the  men¬ 
tal  world,”  wrote  Huxley.  “Ego  is  the  only  reality 
and  everything  else  is  Ego’s  idea,”  said  Charles 
Sedgwick  Minot,  professor  of  embryology  and 
dean  of  the  Harvard  Medical  School.  “The  sole 
reality  that  we  are  able  to  discover  in  the  world  is 
mind,”  says  Verworn,  professor  of  physiology  in 
the  University  of  Jena,  in  his  “General  Physiolo¬ 
gy.”  “Our  world  is  after  all  a  world  of  individual 
consciousness  and  ideas,”  says  Crampton,  profess¬ 
or  of  zoology  at  Columbia  University.  “The  field 

[  138  ] 


The  Problem  or  Ultimate  Causation 

of  science  is  essentially  the  contents  of  the  mind,” 
says  Karl  Pearson,  of  Cambridge  University 
(England)  in  his  encyclopedic  work,  called  “The 
Grammar  of  Science.” 

The  dualistic  postulate  ( B  +  E)  has  little 
standing  among  philosophers,  since  it  is  well  rec¬ 
ognized  that  it  is  but  a  thinly  disguised  material¬ 
ism,  with  its  doctrine  of  epiphenomenalism,  and 
all  the  arguments  against  philosophic  materialism 
apply  equally  against  it.  Minot  remarks  of  epi¬ 
phenomenalism:  “An  epiphenomenon  is  some¬ 
thing  superimposed  upon  the  actual  phenomena 
having  no  causal  relation  to  the  further  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  process.  There  is  no  idea  at  all  under¬ 
neath  the  epiphenomenon  hypothesis  of  conscious¬ 
ness.  The  hypothesis  is  simply  an  empty  phrase, 
a  subterfuge,  which  amounts  to  this:  we  can  ex¬ 
plain  consciousness  very  easily  by  merely  assum¬ 
ing  that  it  does  not  require  to  be  explained  at  all.” 
W.  MacDougall,  in  his  book,  “Body  and  Mind,” 
p.  150,  says:  “Epiphenomenonism,  though  it  may 
perhaps  be  consistent  with  the  law  of  the  conser¬ 
vation  of  energy,  offends  against  a  law  that  has  a 
much  stronger  claim  to  universality,  namely  the 
law  of  causality  itself ;  for  it  assumes  that  a  physic¬ 
al  process,  say  a  molecular  movement  of  the  brain, 
causes  a  sensation,  but  does  so  without  the  cause 
passing  over  in  any  degree  into  the  effect,  without 
the  cause  spending  itself  in  any  degree  in  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  the  effect,  namely,  the  sensation.” 

Consequently  in  our  consideration  of  the  prob- 
blem  of  individuality,  we  are  compelled  to  make 

[  139  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

our  choice  between  philosophical  materialism  and 
idealism,  that  is  to  say,  between  mind  and  matter 
(independent  of  mind)  as  the  basis  of  individu¬ 
ality.  “Our  choice  is  to  be  made  between  a  postu¬ 
late  which  is  philosophically  disreputable  and  one 
which  has  been  accepted  by  the  great  philosophers 
of  recent  times  from  Berkeley  and  Kant  to  Em¬ 
erson,  Royce  and  J ames ;  between  the  assumption 
of  a  wholly  unknowable  and  metaphysical  world 
and  the  indisputable  assumption  that  our  one 
surest  reality  is  consciousness ;  between  the  Haeck- 
elian  riddle  and  the  assumption  that  our  world  has 
moral  and  spiritual  meaning ;  between  a  world  in 
which  the  words  and  gestures  of  every  individual 
“would  have  been  just  what  they  have  been,  the 
same  empires  would  have  arisen  and  fallen,  the 
same  masterpieces  of  music  and  poetry  would 
have  been  produced,  the  same  indications  of  friend¬ 
ship  and  affection  would  have  been  given  in  the 
absence  of  consciousness’’  (Lloyd  Morgan),  and 
the  “common  sense”  view  of  the  historian  that  hu¬ 
man  motives  and  purposes  have  affected  the  course 
of  human  events;  between  a  fatalistic  world  of  il¬ 
lusion,  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  world  in  which 
choices  are  real  and  ideals  count;  between  an  as¬ 
sumption  which  renders  untenable  the  great  hu¬ 
man  ideas  of  God,  freedom  of  the  will,  and  immor¬ 
tality,  and  one  which  gives  these  unquestionable 
validity”  (Neal). 

That  modern  philosophy  has  repudiated  the 
materialistic  postulate  is  not  surprising  in  the  light 
of  the  considerations  which  we  have  presented. 

[140] 


The  Problem  of  Ultimate  Causation 

Since  the  materialistic  postulate  is  not  only  philo¬ 
sophically  unsound  and  wholly  unnecessary  for 
any  ends  which  the  scientist  has  in  view;  since  it 
is  metaphysical,  unscientific  and  irrational — 
wholly  inconsistent  with  the  lives  of  those  who 
make  it  as  Conklin  contends  (“Heredity  and  En¬ 
vironment  in  the  Development  of  Man”) — biolo¬ 
gists  are  more  and  more  becoming  convinced  that 
it  must  be  rejected  and  that  the  idealistic  assump¬ 
tion  must  be  accepted  in  science  as  well  as  in  mod¬ 
ern  philosophy.  There  must  be  the  realization  of 
“the  indisputable  truth  that  the  laws  of  mechanics 
and  motion  themselves  are  in  final  analysis  noth¬ 
ing  else  but  laws  of  thought  of  the  reasoning  mind, 
and  derive  their  first  and  only  warrant  from  the 
higher  reality  of  that  mind”  (D.  G.  Brinton, 
quoted  by  H.  V.  Neal) . 

The  question  now  arises,  “Is  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  inconsistent  with  the  philosophical  po¬ 
sition  here  advanced  and  accepted?”  More  spe¬ 
cifically  the  question  may  be  raised  as  to  the  recon¬ 
ciliation  of  the  idealistic  philosophy  with  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  evolution  of  the  human  race.  These 
questions  have  been  answered,  more  Scottico ,  by 
asking  two  others : 

1.  Is  it  possible  for  us  to  believe  that  a  chaos 
has  become  a  cosmos  without  the  effective  cooper¬ 
ation  of  a  directive  intelligence  or  will  ? 

2.  Is  it  possible  to  believe  on  rational  grounds 
that  a  material  universe  devoid  of  mind  has  pro¬ 
duced  a  mind  capable  of  judging  mechanism? 

J.  J.  Putnam,  in  “Human  Motives,”  raises 

[141] 


Evolution  and  Chkistian  Faith 

these  questions  to  answer  them  in  these  words :  “If 
this  were  true  it  would  seem  possible  for  a  man  to 
raise  himself  by  his  own  boot-straps.  But  if  it  be 
impossible  for  mechanism  (unguided  by  intel¬ 
ligence)  to  produce  the  mind  of  a  person  capable 
of  judging  mechanism,  it  is  clear  that  mechanism 
has  not  been  the  only  principle  at  work  in  the  evo¬ 
lutionary  process.”  Minot,  already  referred  to, 
says  in  a  paper  published  in  Science 3  1902:  “It 
seems  to  me  inconceivable  that  the  evolution  of 
animals  should  have  taken  place  as  it  actually  has 
taken  place  unless  consciousness  is  a  real  factor 
and  dominant.  Accordingly  I  hold  that  it  actually 
affects  the  vital  processes.  There  is,  in  my  judg¬ 
ment,  no  possibility  of  avoiding  the  conclusion 
that  consciousness  stands  in  immediate  causal  re¬ 
lations  with  physiological  processes.  To  say  this  is 
to  abide  by  the  facts,  as  at  present  known  to  us, 
and  with  the  facts  our  conceptions  must  be  made 
to  accord.” 

The  whole  trend  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is 
inescapably  toward  the  point  of  view  of  the  mod¬ 
ern  theologian  when  he  says : 

“Never  yet  has  something  come  out  of  nothing. 
Never  yet  has  order  arisen  out  of  confusion  or 
light  out  of  darkness  as  a  result  of  anything  other 
than  personality.  Force,  law,  life,  and  achieve¬ 
ment  cany  the  mind  irresistibly  to  the  supreme 
will,  to  the  supreme  life,  to  the  personality  of  God. 
A  universe  teeming  with  mind,  fired  within  and 
stamped  without  with  intelligence  is  the  attesta- 


[142] 


The  Pkoblem  of  Ultimate  Causation 

tion  of  the  living  God.  God  is  the  meaning  of  the 
universe. 

“Behind  all  human  achievement  we  see  the  cre¬ 
ative  spirit  at  work.  Back  of  all  achievement  in 
literature  we  see  the  personality  of  Homer  and 
Aeschylus,  Dante,  Goethe  and  Shakespeare.  Be¬ 
hind  the  achievements  of  the  race  in  art  we  see  the 
personality  of  Praxiteles,  Raphael  and  Michael 
Angelo.  For  the  entire  high  achievement  of  the 
race  there  is  no  explanation  but  the  creative  spirit 
of  human  personality.  In  our  contemplation  of 
nature  and  in  our  attempt  to  comprehend  it  we 
need  to  carry  with  us  the  sense  of  creation.  The 
universe  is  the  supreme  achievement.  Behind  this 
achievement  is  the  infinite  soul  and  as  our  human 
world  is  a  living  and  expanding  achievement,  we 
must  conclude  that  within  it  is  the  creative  spirit 
of  God.”  (G.  A.  Gordon,  “The  Appeal  to  Caesar,” 
in  the  Congregationalist,  Vol.  95.  1910.) 

Thus  we  may  discern  with  Tennyson  in  the  pro¬ 
gress  of  evolution 

“One  God.  one  law.  one  element, 

J  J  7 

And  one  far-off  divine  event 
To  which  the  whole  creation  moves.’’ 


[ 143 1 


CHAPTER  X 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  INDIVIDUAL 
VERSUS  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 

SPECIES 


Once  upon  a  time  in  the  days  when  knighthood 
was  in  flower,  two  yokels  were  walking  along  a 
road  engaged  in  friendly  conversation.  By  and  by 
as  their  gaze  ran  along  the  way  in  front  they  saw 
a  handsomely  equipped  knight  approaching  on 
horseback.  He  was  clad  in  a  coat-of-mail,  and 
carried  his  lance  in  his  right  hand,  while  on  his 
left  arm  he  bore  his  shield.  As  he  came  near,  the 
two  yokels  stepped  to  opposite  sides  of  the  road 
to  allow  him  to  pass  between  them.  Bareheaded, 
with  hats  in  hand,  they  stood  at  respectful  atten¬ 
tion  while  he  rode  by  without  so  much  as  a  glance 
in  their  direction.  Directly  the  two  continued  their 
walk  and  naturally  fell  to  discussing  the  knight, 
his  appearance,  his  steed,  and  his  accoutrement. 
Loud  were  their  praises  of  his  various  articles  of 
equipment,  until  one  remarked  upon  the  beautiful 
white  shield  which  he  bore  upon  his  arm.  The  other 
immediately  exclaimed:  “White!  You  fool!  That 
was  no  white  shield — it  was  black  as  jet !  ”  “You’re 
the  fool !”  replied  the  first,  “I  tell  you  it  was  white ; 
vour  eves  were  blinded  by  the  sun,  if  it  looked 

[  145  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

black  to  you!”  So  the  wordy  contest  grew  more 
and  more  heated  and  acrimonious  until  at  last  one 
passed  that  short  ugly  word  that  brought  on  the 
blow.  Fists  flew  thick  and  fast,  eyes  became  black 
and  noses  bloody.  At  last  while  pommelling  each 
other  on  the  ground,  neither  willing  to  concede 
any  measure  of  truth  in  the  other’s  opinion,  one 
of  their  friends  came  along,  and,  seeing  the  fight, 
inquired  the  cause.  As  the  one  explained  that  the 
shield  was  white,  while  the  second  was  equally 
sure  that  it  was  black,  the  quarrel  was  renewed 
and  the  fight  was  about  to  begin  again,  when  the 
mutual  friend  had  a  happy  thought.  “Come,  come, 
fellows!”  he  said,  “What  is  the  use  of  quarreling 
and  fighting  over  such  an  absurd  thing?  Don't  you 
see  that,  since  one  of  vou  savs  that  the  shield  is 
white,  while  the  other  is  equally  sure  that  it  is 
black,  the  shield  must  be  gray?” 

This  compromise  solution  of  their  difficulty  ap¬ 
pealed  to  the  illiterate  yokels,  who  made  up  and 
continued  their  journey  on  friendly  terms  once 
more.  They  had  not  gone  far  on  their  way  when 
the  sound  of  a  horseman  approaching  them  from 
the  rear  caused  them  both  to  turn  their  heads,  only 
to  see  the  same  knight  retracing  the  road  he  had 
so  recently  travelled  in  the  opposite  direction. 
Once  again  the  two  vokels  stood  at  either  side  of 
the  road  in  an  outward  attitude  of  respect,  though 
inwardly  each  was  resolved  to  look  more  particu¬ 
larly  at  the  shield  to  make  sure  that  he  had  been 
right  about  its  color.  To  their  astonishment,  the 
one  who  had  formerly  so  stoutly  asserted  the 

[ 146  ] 


The  Individual  Versus  the  Species 

blackness  of  the  shield  now  perceived  its  snowy 
whiteness,  while  the  other,  who  had  previously  con¬ 
tended  even  to  his  own  hurt  that  the  shield  was 
white,  now  discovered  it  to  have  the  hue  of  the 
darkest  midnight !  Each  was  now  so  bent  on  apolo¬ 
gy  to  his  friend  for  having  before  disputed  his 
word,  that  they  again  came  near  to  blows:  but 
luckily  at  this  point  a  turn  in  the  road  brought 
them  within  sight  of  a  public  inn,  at  which  the 
knight  was  alighting. 

As  he  did  so  he  passed  his  shield  over  to  his 
squire,  who  turned,  as  the  yokels  approached,  in 
such  a  way  that  they  could  plainly  see  first  the  one 
side  and  then  the  other  of  the  shield,  when  lo! 

they  saw  that  it  was  white  on  one  side  and  black 

%/ 

on  the  other!  They  had  both  been  right,  absolutely 
right  in  their  assertions  as  to  the  color  each  had 
seen;  they  had  both  been  wrong  in  refusing  to 
consider  the  matter  from  the  other’s  point  of  view. 
Furthermore,  the  one  individual  who  had  been 
wholly  wrong  in  the  matter  was  the  friendly 
peacemaker  who  had  sought  by  his  shallow  think¬ 
ing  to  effect  a  compromise  on  gray  as  the  color  of 
the  shield.  The  shield  was  both  black  and  white , 
but  not  at  any  time  gray. 

This  parable  teaches  a  fundamental  truth  which 
is  founded  upon  an  abundance  of  human  experi¬ 
ence,  namely,  that  when  a  question  of  fact  arises 
over  which  men  debate  long  and  heatedly,  and  for 
which  both  sides  are  willing  to  and  do  make  great 
personal  sacrifices  to  establish  their  respective  po¬ 
sitions,  the  truth  is  usually  to  be  found  partly  on 

[  147  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

both  sides,  which  may  be  reconciled,  but  not  by  a 
compromise  which  is  false  to  both.  Moreover,  no 
position  wholly  in  error  can  long  withstand  the 
assaults  made  upon  it;  the  longer  the  debate  the 
surer  is  it  that  there  is  truth  upon  both  sides,  per¬ 
haps  not  unmingled  with  error,  which  must  be  re¬ 
fined  away,  but  it  is  an  assuring  fact  that  the 
“truth  is  mighty  and  will  prevail  ” 

Now,  the  conflict  of  opinion  between  science 
and  theology  as  to  the  method  of  creation  is  just 
such  a  matter  as  this.  For  many  years,  the  con¬ 
flict  has  been  waged  with  varying  fortunes  as  one 
doughty  champion  has  faced  another;  most  fierce¬ 
ly  when  some  materialist,  like  Haeckel,  has  wielded 
the  sword  on  the  side  of  science  and  some  idealist 
has  championed  the  cause  of  the  church.  No  com¬ 
promise  of  views  in  this  cause  can  come  any  nearer 
the  truth  than  did  the  third  yokel  in  our  parable. 
The  materialist  and  the  theologian  have  generally 
each  been  right  in  the  assertion  of  the  truth  as  he 
saw  it,  and  both  have  been  equally  wrong  in  re¬ 
fusing  to  see  the  truth  of  their  opponents.  The 
way  of  reconciliation,  not  of  compromise,  lies  in 
the  candid  and  open-minded  examination  of  both 
sides  to  determine  wherein  each  is  right,  and 
wherein  each  is  wrong.  When  this  is  done  it  will 
be  found  that  the  partial  truth  of  each  fits  into 
that  of  the  other  to  make  the  whole  truth  well- 
rounded  and  complete. 

The  origin  of  the  individual  as  well  as  of  the 
species  may  be  explained  on  any  one  of  three  dif¬ 
ferent  theories.  Two  of  these  are  mutually  nulli- 

[  148  ] 


The  Indiyiduae  Versus  the  Species 


fying — if  one  is  wholly  right  then  the  other  is 
wholly  wrong.  But  the  third  theory  finds  truth  in 
both  and  combines  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  harmon¬ 
ize  and  reconcile  the  partial  truths  into  a  logical 
and  reasonable  whole,  which  is  then  perceived  by 
the  unprejudiced  investigator  to  be  a  grander  and 
nobler  view  than  either  of  the  others.  Thus,  as 
LeConte  long  ago  pointed  out,  there  are  three 
theories  of  individual  origin  current  in  the  minds 
of  men.  The  first  is  that  taught  by  many  pious  but 
uninformed  parents  to  their  children,  namely, 
that  they  are  made  in  some  miraculous  way  di¬ 
rectly  by  the  Creator.  “God  made  us,”  is  the  reply 
so  frequently  heard  to  the  child’s  eager  question¬ 
ing  about  his  origin.  The  second  is  the  thought  of 
the  untaught  street-gamin,  or  of  Topsv,  who  said: 
“I  was  not  made  at  all;  I  just  growed.”  Or,  in  the 
language  of  the  materialist,  the  individual  is  the 
product  of  resident  forces  in  the  egg.  The  third 
answer  is  that  of  most  intelligent  Christians,  that 
God  made  as  through  a  natural  process.  To  one 
who  has  observed  directly  the  development  of  the 
living  egg,  from  its  relatively  simple  and  appar¬ 
ently  unorganized  condition  into  the  complex  in¬ 
dividual  which  it  gradually  becomes,  the  natural 
processes  of  cell-multiplication,  differentiation, 
unequal  growth  of  parts,  etc,  all  are  apparent 
enough.  It  groves.  But,  the  thoughtful  observer 
of  the  phenomenon  cannot  help  being  impressed 
bv  the  fact  that  the  mechanical  forces  observed  do 
not  constitute  the  ultimate  explanation  of  the 
phenomenon.  The  egg  is  moulded  as  by  the  hand 

[  149  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

of  an  invisible  potter.  The  ultimate  creative  ener¬ 
gy  of  the  universe,  God  himself,  is  revealed  in  the 
process. 

Observe  that  this  third  conclusion  combines  and 
reconciles  the  partial  truths  of  both  the  other 
theories.  It  is  therefore  more  reasonable  than 
either  of  them.  It  harmonizes  them  into  a  philo¬ 
sophically  sound  position  that  rests  on  the  scien¬ 
tific  evidence  of  the  embryologist  and  the  religious 
experience  of  the  theologian.  It  is  a  conclusion 
that  cannot  be  successfully  assailed  from  any 
standpoint. 

In  like  manner,  one  can  account  for  the  origin 
of  species  on  three  exactly  analogous  theories. 
The  first  is  that  so  widely  held  by  the  literalistical- 
ly  orthodox  clergymen  and  laymen  alike  who  as¬ 
sert  that  species  were  made  out  of  hand  by  the 
Creator  without  the  operation  of  any  natural  pro¬ 
cess.  That  God  spoke  a  word  and  the  dust  of  the 
earth  became  a  living  organism.  It  is  the  theory 
of  Special  Creation  adopted  as  the  orthodox  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  taken 
over  into  Protestant  theology  bodily  from  the 
same  source.  The  second  theory  is  that  of  the  ma¬ 
terialist  who  asserts  that  there  was  no  creation  at 
all;  that  species  were  derived  from  non-living 
matter  through  a  happy  concatenation  of  circum¬ 
stances.  That  “chance”  brought  together  certain 
inorganic  elements  in  a  certain  relationship  and 
that  “life”  is  the  peculiar  manifestation  of  the  in¬ 
teractions  of  the  atoms  or  electrons  of  those  ele¬ 
ments.  This  theory  asserts  the  sufficiency  of  the 

[150] 


The  Individual  Versus  the  Species 

resident  forces  of  nature  to  produce  all  organisms 
from  the  simplest  monad  up  to  man.  “Species,”  in 
the  language  of  Topsy,  “just  growed.”  The  third 
theory  is  that  of  the  theistic  evolutionist,  who  as- 
serts  that  species  were  created  by  a  process  of  evo¬ 
lution;  that  the  Creative  Intelligence  directed  the 
processes  of  nature  in  a  way  so  far  unknown  to  the 
physicist  and  chemist.  On  this  view  species  were 
made ,  but  not  in  such  a  way  as  to  preclude  all  fur¬ 
ther  growth  and  development.  Quoting  from  Le- 
Conte:  “The  first  asserts  divine  agency,  but  de¬ 
nies  natural  process ;  the  second  asserts  the  natur¬ 
al  process,  but  denies  divine  agency ;  the  third  as¬ 
serts  divine  agency  by  natural  process.  Of  the  first 
two,  observe,  both  are  right  and  both  wrong;  each 
view  is  right  in  what  it  asserts,  and  wrong  in  what 
it  denies—each  is  right  from  its  own  point  of  view, 
but  wrong  in  excluding  the  other  point  of  view. 
The  third  is  the  only  true  rational  solution,  for  it 
includes,  combines,  and  reconciles  the  other  two ; 
showing  wherein  each  is  right  and  wherein  wrong. 
It  is  the  combination  of  the  two  partial  truths,  and 
the  elimination  of  the  partial  errors.  But  let  us 
not  fail  to  do  perfect  justice.  The  first  two  views 
of  origin,  whether  of  the  individual  or  of  the  spe¬ 
cies,  are  indeed  both  partly  wrong  as  well  as  part¬ 
ly  right ;  but  the  view  of  the  pious  child  or  of  the 
Christian  contains  by  far  the  more  essential  truth. 
Of  the  two  sides  of  the  shield,  theirs  is  at  least  the 
whiter  and  more  beautiful. 

“But,  alas!  the  great  bar  to  a  speedy  settle¬ 
ment  of  this  question  and  the  adoption  of  a  ration- 

[151] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 


al  philosophy  is  not  in  the  head,  but  in  the  heart — 
is  not  in  the  reason,  but  in  pride  of  opinion,  self- 
conceit,  dogmatism.  The  rarest  of  all  gifts  is  a 
truly  tolerant,  rational  spirit.  In  all  our  gettings 
let  us  get  this,  for  it  alone  is  true  wisdom.  But  we 
must  not  imagine  that  all  the  dogmatism  is  on  one 
side,  and  that  the  theological.  Many  seem  to  think 
that  theology  has  a  “presumptive  right”  to  dog¬ 
matism.  If  so,  the  modern  materialistic  science 
has  “jumped  the  claim.”  Dogmatism  has  its  roots 
deep-bedded  in  the  human  heart.  It  showed  itself 
first  in  the  domain  of  theology,  because  there  was 
the  seat  of  power.  In  modem  times  it  has  gone 
over  to  the  side  of  science,  because  here  now  is  the 
place  of  power  and  fashion.  There  are  two  dog¬ 
matisms,  both  equally  opposed  to  the  true  ration¬ 
al  spirit,  viz.,  the  old  theological  and  the  new  scien¬ 
tific.  The  old  clings  fondly  to  old  things,  only  be¬ 
cause  they  are  old;  the  new  grasps  eagerly  after 
new  things,  only  because  they  are  new.  True  wis¬ 
dom  and  true  philosophy,  on  the  contrary,  tries 
all  things  both  old  and  new,  and  holds  fast  only  to 
that  which  is  good  and  true.  The  new  dogmatism 
taunts  the  old  for  credulity  and  superstition;  the 
old  reproaches  the  new  for  levity  and  skepticism. 
But  true  wisdom  perceives  that  they  are  both 
equally  credulous  and  equally  skeptical.  The  old 
is  credulous  of  old  ideas  and  skeptical  of  new;  the 
new  is  skeptical  of  old  ideas  and  credulous  of  new. 
Both  deserve  the  unsparing  rebuke  of  all  right- 
minded  men.  The  appropriate  rebuke  for  the  old 
dogmatism  has  been  already  put  into  the  mouth  of 

[152] 


The  Individual  Versus  the  Species 

Job  in  the  form  of  the  bitter  sneer:  “No  doubt  ye 
are  the  people,  and  wisdom  shall  die  with  you.” 
The  appropriate  rebuke  for  the  new  dogmatism 
though  not  put  into  the  mouth  of  any  ancient 
prophet,  ought  to  be  uttered — I  will  undertake 
to  utter  it  here.  I  would  say  to  these  modern  ma¬ 
terialists:  “No  doubt  ye  are  the  men,  and  wisdom 
and  true  philosophy  were  born  with  you.”  (Le- 
Conte,  “Evolution,”  2nd  ed.,  1897.) 

A  further,  shorter  quotation  from  Le  Conte 
sums  up  the  conclusion  here  set  forth  so  well  that 
we  cannot  forbear  to  give  it.  He  says: 

“The  process  and  the  law  of  evolution  does  not 
differ  in  its  relation  to  materialism  from  all  other 
processes  and  laws  of  nature.  If  the  sustentation 
of  the  universe  by  the  law  of  gravitation  does  not 
disturb  our  belief  in  God  as  the  sustainer  of  the 
universe,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  origin  of  the 
universe  bv  the  law  of  evolution  should  disturb 
our  faith  in  God  as  the  creator  of  the  universe.  If 
the  law  of  gravitation  be  regarded  as  the  Divine 
mode  of  sustentation,  there  is  no  reason  why  we 
should  not  regard  the  law  of  evolution  as  the  Di¬ 
vine  process  of  creation.  It  is  evident  that  if  evolu¬ 
tion  be  materialism,  then  is  gravitation  also  ma¬ 
terialism:  then  is  every  law  of  nature  and  all 
science  materialism.  If  there  be  anv  difference  at 
all,  it  consists  only  in  this :  that .  .  .  here  is  the  last 
line  of  defense  of  the  supporters  of  supernatural¬ 
ism  in  the  realm  of  nature.” 

It  has  always  seemed  strange  to  the  present 
author  that  those  who  accept  the  “natural”  origin 

[153] 


Eatolution  and  Christian  Faith 

of  the  individual  as  a  demonstrated  fact  of  nature 
and  do  not  find  it  disturbing  to  their  theological 
beliefs,  should  consider  the  “natural”  origin  of 
species  so  destructive.  It  is  certainly,  a  'priori,  a 
much  more  wonderful  fact  that  the  individual  in 
a  few  short  years,  not  to  say  months,  literally 
evolves  from  a  simple  spherical  cell  only  l-120th 
of  an  inch  in  diameter,  with  absolutely  none  of 
the  organs  or  parts  of  the  adult,  into  a  man  with 
all  his  wonderful  complexity  of  organization,  and 
his  ability  to  think,  to  reason,  and  to  will,  than 
that  a  species  has  been  produced  by  evolution 
through  millions  of  years  from  a  simpler  begin¬ 
ning.  If  God  can  and  does  by  natural  processes 
create  the  individual  man  in  the  length  of  time  re¬ 
quired  for  his  prenatal  development,  his  infancy 
and  his  youth,  why  think  it  strange,  or  belittling 
of  His  power  and  wisdom,  to  find  that  He  took 
millions  of  years  in  developing  organic  creation 
up  to  the  point  where  man  became  a  rational  spirit 
— the  true  image  of  his  Maker? 


[  154  ] 


CHAPTER  XI 


WHAT  AND  WHERE  IS  GOD  ? 

It  has  been  our  purpose  to  show  that  every  great 
scientific  discovery  has  had  its  influence  on  the 
current  or  traditional  philosophy  and  religion.  In 
this  respect  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is  no  differ¬ 
ent  from  the  law  of  gravitation,  the  discovery  of 
the  great  antiquity  of  the  earth  and  of  man,  or  the 
heliocentric  theory  of  the  solar  system.  It  simply 
carries  the  process  logically  a  step  farther  and 
forces  the  issue,  so  that  it  can  be  no  longer  com¬ 
promised  nor  evaded.  The  traditional  view  of  God 
and  His  relation  to  nature  and  to  man  has  the 
force  of  hoary  age  upon  it;  it  has  the  stamp  of  ap¬ 
proval  of  high  ecclesiastical  authority;  to  main¬ 
tain  their  belief  in  it,  martyrs  have  suffered  tor- 
ture  on  the  rack,  crucifixion  on  the  cross,  or  death 
at  the  stake. 

Philosophically,  there  have  been  several  an¬ 
swers  made  to  the  question,  What  and  where  is 
God?  One  of  these  is  that  of  materialism  which 
denies  His  existence  at  all.  Since  we  have  already 
shown  that  materialism  is  philosophically  un¬ 
sound,  it  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  its  position 
further.  Among  those,  however,  who  reject  the 
atheism  of  the  materialist,  there  is  and  has  been  a 

[ 155  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

considerable  variation  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the 
spiritualistic  principle  on  which  must  rest  all  the 
cosmic  phenomena.  At  various  times  and  in  the 
minds  of  various  people  the  opinions  have  taken 
the  form  (1)  of  polytheism,  (2)  of  pantheism,  (3) 
of  deism,  and  (4)  of  theism . 

Polytheism,  as  the  name  implies,  is  the  primi¬ 
tive,  superstitious  belief  in  many  gods.  At  the 
present  time  it  has  no  philosophical  standing  and 
is  found  only  in  the  superstition  of  the  untutored 
savage  or  barbarian  who  sees  a  god  of  good  or  evil 
intent  in  every  object  and  phenomenon  of  nature. 
This  theory  is  the  product  of  man’s  groping  in  the 
darkness  of  ignorance  for  an  explanation  of  the 
great  mysteries  which  surround  him  and  in  rela¬ 
tion  to  which  he  feels  himself  to  have  a  deep  con¬ 
cern.  A  further  consideration  of  polytheism  is  not 
necessary  for  our  purpose. 

Pantheism  is  a  theory  which  looks  upon  the 
universe  as  the  sole  and  complete  manifestation 
of  God.  “ God  is  all  and  all  is  God'3  is  the  crv  of  the 
pantheist.  It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  pantheism 
has  appealed  more  strongly  to  those  of  poetic 
vision  than  to  those  more  philosophically  inclined. 
The  English  poet,  Wordsworth,  in  his  Lines  Com¬ 
posed  Above  T intern  Abbey,  gives  what  Hibben 
characterizes  as  a  “most  profound  and  subtle  ex¬ 
pression  of  pantheistic  interpretation,”  in  these 
lines: 

“For  I  have  learned 
To  look  on  nature,  not  as  in  the  hour 
Of  thoughtless  youth;  but  hearing  oftentimes 

[156] 


What  and  Where  is  God? 


The  still,  sad  music  of  humanity, 

Nor  harsh,  nor  grating,  though  of  ample  power 
To  chasten  and  subdue.  And  I  have  felt 
A  presence  that  disturbs  me  with  the  joy 
Of  elevated  thoughts :  a  sense  sublime 
Of  something  far  more  deeply  interfused, 

Whose  dwelling  is  the  light  of  setting  suns, 

And  the  round  ocean,  and  the  living  air, 

And  the  blue  skv,  and  in  the  mind  of  man: 

A  motion  and  a  spirit  that  impels 

All  thinking  things,  all  objects  of  all  thought, 

And  rolls  through  all  things.” 

The  renowned  poet,  Goethe,  gives  a  clear  state¬ 
ment  of  this  pantheistic  belief  in  these  words : 

“What  were  a  God  who  only  gave  the  world  a 
push  from  without,  or  let  it  spin  around  His  fin¬ 
ger?  I  look  for  a  God  who  moves  the  world  from 
within,  who  fosters  nature  in  Himself,  Himself 
in  nature,  so  that  naught  of  all  that  lives  and 
moves  and  has  its  being  in  Him  ever  forgets  His 
force  or  His  spirit.” 

Hibben  (“Problems  of  Philosophy,”  p.  70) 
points  out  the  generally  recognized  fact  that 

“Pantheism  takes  two  forms,  which  do  not  dif¬ 
fer,  however,  fundamentally.  The  one  identifies 
God  completely  with  the  world  of  being,  coming 
to  His  highest  manifestation  in  the  consciousness 
of  man.  From  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  from  the 
simplest  to  the  most  complex  forms  of  this  mani¬ 
festation,  all  is  God.  The  other  view  emphasizes 
the  divine  as  the  onlv  reality  and  reduces  the  facts 

‘  [157] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

of  existence  to  a  mere  appearance,  the  shadowy 
semblance  of  reality.  While  the  former  view  de¬ 
nies  all  difference  between  God  and  the  world,  in¬ 
cluding  man,  the  latter  insists  that  the  seeming 
difference  must  be  regarded  as  a  mental  illusion, 
having  no  basis  in  reality.  In  either  case,  God’s 
immanence  is  magnified  to  the  exclusion  of  His 
transcendence.  It  is  a  convenient  philosophy,  the 
reference  of  everything  to  God;  it  unties  many 
hard  knots,  it  cuts  in  twain  many  more.” 

Deism  is  the  belief  of  the  usual  orthodox  Chris¬ 
tian.  It  is  philosophically  but  “a  refined  form  of 
polytheism.”  For  the  many  gods  of  the  polytheist, 
it  simply  substitutes  one  god,  or  rather  it  com¬ 
bines  and  fuses  into  one  the  many  gods  of  poly¬ 
theism.  It  attributes  to  its  one  God  the  same  at¬ 
tributes  which,  in  polytheism,  are  parcelled  out 
to  the  many.  “The  God  of  the  deist  is  an  “enlarged 
man,”  an  artificer  rather  than  a  creator;  the  world 
is  regarded  as  a  stupendous  mechanism  rather 
than  a  manifestation  of  the  life  of  the  supreme 
Being”  (Hibben).  This  is  the  traditional  view 
of  God  which  looks  upon  Him  as  a  great  master 
mechanic  who  upon  an  occasion  long  ago  con¬ 
structed  the  huge  machine  of  the  universe  and  all 
that  is  within  it,  like  a  great  clock  made  up  of 
wheels  (matter)  and  weights  or  springs  (energy), 
so  perfectly  constructed,  so  adequately  adjusted 
in  all  its  parts,  that  having  once  been  set  going  it 
could  run  on  through  the  allotted  period  of  time 
with  no  further  need  of  direction  or  attention  from 

[158] 


What  and  Where  is  God? 

the  Maker.  And  then  having  accomplished  this 
great  work  out  of  hand,  the  Maker  rested . 

Or,  the  traditional  view  may  be  likened  unto 
that  of  the  head  of  a  great  business  enterprise 
who  has  so  organized  his  affairs,  who  has  employed 
such  competent  assistants  that  he  no  longer  needs 
to  devote  his  time  and  attention  to  the  business, 
but  is  able  to  enjoy  his  golf,  his  hunting  or  fishing, 
his  travel  abroad,  perfectly  assured  that  the  busi¬ 
ness  will  go  on  without  interruption  in  his  absence. 
His  subordinates  are  trained  and  perform  their 
duties  without  intervention  on  his  part,  unless  per¬ 
chance  matters  do  not  always  go  along  quite  so 
smoothly.  Little  annoyances  arise,  friction  occurs, 
accidents  happen,  and  the  subordinates  appeal  to 
the  absent  chief  by  telegraph  or  by  telephone,  ask¬ 
ing  for  further  direction,  for  help  and  guidance 
in  the  complications  that  have  arisen  to  perplex 
and  annoy  them.  More  or  less  directly  the  mer¬ 
chant  chief  has  to  adjust  matters,  make  changes 
here  and  there  in  his  organization,  perhaps  elim¬ 
inate  parts  that  do  not  function  properly,  or  in¬ 
troduce  new  blood  into  the  staff,  or  new  stock  on 
the  shelves.  But  in  the  main  things  go  pretty  much 
in  routine  ways.  Now  and  then  the  merchant  may 
even  have  to  return  in  person  to  perform  the  du¬ 
ties  that  no  subordinate  is  capable  of  undertak¬ 
ing;  reorganization  must  be  made;  expansion  or 
enlargement  of  the  field  of  operations  must  be 
provided  for;  and  then  he  may  go  away  for  an¬ 
other  period  of  rest  or  travel,  subject  to  summons 
at  any  time  by  post  or  telegraph. 

[  159  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

Just  as  pantheism  emphasizes  the  immanence 
of  God  to  the  exclusion  of  His  transcendence,  so 
deism  emphasizes  the  transcendence  of  God  to  the 
exclusion  of  His  immanence.  They  are  therefore 
mutually  exclusive  and  contradictory.  Pantheism 
and  materialism,  the  former  by  elevating  nature 
up  to  God,  the  latter  by  degrading  God  down  to 
an  identity  with  nature,  finally  merge  indistin- 
guishably  into  each  other.  There  is  therefore  a 
mutual  exclusion  or  contradiction  between  deism 
on  the  one  hand  and  pantheism  and  materialism 
on  the  other. 

Theism  at  once  combines  and  reconciles  the 
truth  in  so  far  as  it  finds  expression  in  deism  and 
pantheism ;  it  takes  their  partial  truths,  eliminates 
their  errors,  and  arrives  at  a  view  of  God  that  is 
the  grandest  and  noblest  possible  to  the  human 
mind.  Theism  “takes  exception,  not  to  that  which 
pantheism  asserts,  but  to  that  which  pantheism 
denies,  or  ignores,  namely,  the  transcendence  of 
God”  (Hibben) .  “It  is  differentiated  from  deism 
in  that  it  insists  upon  the  sustaining  and  operating 
presence  of  God  in  all  phenomena  of  the  universe. 
Theism  denies  the  possibility  of  an  “absentee 
God.”  It  differs,  however,  on  the  other  hand,  from 
pantheism  in  affirming  the  existence  of  a  real  dis¬ 
tinction  between  God  and  his  works,  between  the 
Creator  and  the  creature,  especially  as  this  dis¬ 
tinction  is  emphasized  in  the  consciousness  of  a 
self  which  refuses  to  be  absorbed  in  the  great  All 
of  pantheism.  Thus  theism  is  an  attempt  to  syn¬ 
thesize  within  a  higher  unity  the  two  opposed 

[160]  ' 


What  and  Where  is  God? 

ideas  of  transcendence  and  immanence,  and  which 
regards  God  as  manifesting  Himself  in  and 
through  His  works,  and  yet  as  a  personality,  dis¬ 
tinct  from  them”  (Hibben). 

While  the  poets  have  generally  inclined  to  the 
purely  pantheistic  view,  the  philosophizing  scien¬ 
tists  have  often  felt  the  force  of  the  materialistic 
hypothesis.  To  them  it  has  seemed  that  matter  and 
energy  must  always  have  existed;  that  they  could 
have  had  no  creation,  since  the  production  of 
something  out  of  nothing  is  contrary  to  all  ex¬ 
perience,  and  hence  there  could  have  been  no  cre¬ 
ator.  Matter  and  energy  being  indestructible  will, 
therefore,  have  no  end.  Their  existence  is  from  the 
infinity  of  past  time  to  the  infinity  of  future  time. 
The  materialist  asserts  furthermore  that  not  only 
are  they  thus  eternal  but  by  themselves  are  able  to 
and  have  accomplished  the  production  of  all  the 
forms  of  animate  and  inanimate  nature.  Resident 
forces  account  for  all  the  phenomena  of  the  uni¬ 
verse  from  electron  to  reason,  from  the  universal 
ether  to  human  consciousness,  from  the  harmony 
of  the  spheres  to  the  moral  sense  in  man.  Since, 
on  this  view,  the  universe  is  infinite  both  in  time 
and  space,  and  since  there  is  no  directing  agency 
in  it  but  blind  chance  and  the  law  of  necessity, 
there  is  not  only  no  god  but  no  room  nor  need  of 
one. 

The  orthodox  deistic  view  and  this  are  mutual¬ 
ly  antagonistic  and  mutually  exclusive.  Scientific 
research  and  discoverv  have  more  and  more  re- 
moved  the  phenomena  of  nature  from  the  opera- 

[  161  ] 


Evolution  and  Chkistian  Faith 

tion  of  the  traditional  view  of  the  Creator’s  handi¬ 
work,  until  it  would  appear  at  times,  as  many 
have  thought,  that  materialism  is  about  to  capture 
the  whole  realm  of  nature.  One  by  one  the  tradi¬ 
tional  ideas  of  the  relation  of  the  earth  to  the  sun 
and  other  planets,  of  the  age  of  the  earth  and  of 
man,  of  the  origin  of  inanimate  and  animate  ob¬ 
jects,  have  had  to  give  way  to  the  discoveries  of 
science  until  it  seemed  as  though  the  whole  foun¬ 
dation  of  our  philosophical  and  religious  edifice 
was  slipping  away  like  a  house  built  upon  the 
sand.  Evolution  is  simply  the  latest  of  these  great 
discoveries  of  science.  To  many  good  people  it  has 
seemed  that  those  which  went  before  had  resulted 
only  in  the  surrender  of  more  or  less  unimportant 
outworks,  had  compelled  strategic  retreats  from 
terrain  that  should  never  have  been  occupied,  but 
this  latest  attack  would  seem  to  compel  the  falling 
back  to  an  entirely  new  position,  to  the  surrender 
of  the  very  citadel  which  had  been  our  shelter  in 
all  the  centuries  past,  to  the  vanquishment  of  all 
that  is  highest,  holiest,  and  most  worth  while  in 
life,  and  the  annihilation  of  all  our  fondest  hopes 
for  the  future. 

As  LeConte  long  ago  pointed  out,  when  the 
law  of  gravitation  became  the  accepted  view,  it 
was  felt  that  while  the  course  of  nature  might  be 
explained  as  due  to  resident  forces,  there  still 
remained  the  origin  of  things  as  inexplicable  on 
any  such  grounds.  God’s  hand  appeared  necessary 
to  fashion  and  to  form  every  new  appearance  of 
matter  or  energy,  but  evolution  seemed  to  take 

[162] 


What  and  Where  is  God? 

away  even  this  necessity.  Resident  forces  seemed 
sufficient  to  account  for  oi'igins  as  well  as  courses . 
Natural  law  operated  here  as  elsewhere.  Just  as 
the  old  view  that  God  supports  the  world  in  the 
hollow  of  His  hand  gave  way  to  the  view  that  the 
laws  of  attraction  and  repulsion  were  sufficient  to 
account  for  the  earth’s  journey  through  space, 
so  it  seemed  that  here  the  old  view  that  God  made 
all  things  should  have  to  give  way  to  Topsy’s  view 
that  they  4 'merely  grew.”  Evolution  then  forces 
the  issue — either  nature  is  all  sufficient  and  needs 
no  God,  or  else  the  traditional  view  is  utterly  in¬ 
adequate. 

The  dilemma  is  inescapable — it  must  be  reso¬ 
lutely  faced.  The  sooner  theologians  realize  the 
situation  and  resolutely  face  the  problem,  the  bet¬ 
ter  it  will  be  for  the  world.  No  attempt  to  dis¬ 
credit  the  results  of  science  will  avail.  Day  by  day 
those  results  are  rendered  more  substantial  and 
undeniable.  More  and  more  are  these  results  of 
science  entering  into  the  philosophy  of  the  people. 
It  is  futile  to  close  our  eyes  to  the  real  situation.  It 
is  criminal  to  refuse  to  see  it  as  it  is.  So  long  as 
there  are  those  who  are  ignorant  of  scientific  dis¬ 
covery,  so  long  will  there  be  those  who  are  content 
with  traditional  views,  but  every  day  finds  more 
and  more  of  our  young  people  confronted  with 
the  irrefutable  facts  of  science  which  are  irrecon¬ 
cilable  with  traditional  theological  dogma.  The 
result  is  rampant  materialism,  for  which  theology 
is  responsible  and  not  science,  for  it  is  theology 
which  has  so  often  refused  to  square  its  teaching 

[  163  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

with  the  facts.  Practically,  this  condition  is  emp¬ 
tying  both  pulpits  and  pews.  “According  to  Dr. 
Robert  L.  Kelley,  secretary  of  the  Council  of 
Church  Boards  of  Education,  fully  five  thousand 
Protestant  pulpits  are  now  vacant  in  this  country, 
and  another  five  thousand  will  need  ministers  next 
year.  To  meet  this  demand  the  seminaries  gradu¬ 
ated  in  June  (1921)  only  1,600  students,  and  not 
all  of  these  can  be  counted  on  for  ministerial 
service. 

“While  colleges,  universities  and  other  pro¬ 
fessional  schools  are  crowded  beyond  precedent, 
the  theological  seminaries,  with  significant  excep¬ 
tions,  are  losing  disastrously.  Attendance  at  Epis¬ 
copalian  seminaries  decreased  from  463  in  1916  to 
193  in  1920.  In  Presbyterian  seminaries  it  de¬ 
creased  from  1188  in  1916  to  695  in  1921;  in 
Methodist  seminaries  from  1226  in  1916  to  976, 
and  in  Congregational  seminaries  from  499  in 
1910  to  255  in  1921. 

“Explanations  of  these  losses  which  are  coming 
from  seminarv  authorities  and  ministers  are  su- 
perficial  and  unconvincing.  Most  of  them  allege 
the  war  and  its  effects.  That  this  theory  is  of  little 
value  appears  from  contrasting  Roman  Catholic 
gains.  Attendance  at  Roman  Catholic  seminaries 
(which  stand  upon  the  affirmation  of  ecclesiastical 
authority)  has  been  and  is  gaining.  There  is  more 
than  a  hint  in  this  fact  of  what  some  of  the  real 
causes  at  work  are.  A  hint  of  other  and  different 
but  cooperating  causes  is  given  in  the  prosperity 
of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  which  a  reac- 

[  164  ] 


What  and  Wheee  is  God? 

tionary  element  in  the  Presbyterian  body  once 
tried  to  put  out  of  business.  Maintaining  a  univer¬ 
sity  connection,  high  standards  of  up-to-date 
scholarship,  and  a  liberal  attitude,  Union  Semi¬ 
nary  is  attracting  year  by  year  an  increasing  num¬ 
ber  of  well-prepared  and  serious-minded  students, 
worthy  to  be  compared  in  ability  with  the  young 
men  who  go  into  law,  medicine,  engineering,  and 
other  professions  that  demand  intelligence  and 
knowledge.”  (Franklin  H.  Giddings,  in  The  In¬ 
dependent,  August  20,  1921,  p.  67.) 

In  this  same  article  Professor  Giddings,  whose 
well  known  abilities  and  attainments  entitle  him 
to  speak  with  authority,  and  compel  respectful  at¬ 
tention,  clarifies  his  diagnosis  still  further  in  these 
words : 

“It  would  be  a  waste  of  energy  at  this  late  day 
to  review  the  obstinacy  with  which  Protestant 
theologians,  rejecting  authoritative  formulations 
of  belief  from  Rome,  and  professing  liberty  to  in¬ 
terpret  the  Scriptures  under  accountability  to  the 
individual  conscience,  nevertheless  resisted  knowl¬ 
edge.  They  not  only  did  not  inform  themselves 
.  .  .  ;  but  also  they  did  their  best  to  keep  scientific 
facts  from  inquisitive  youth  by  branding  indis¬ 
pensable  books  as  dangerous  or  worse.  Whether 
or  not  this  was  sin,  it  was  an  absurdity  that 
queered  Protestant  theology. 

“Truth  is  either  authoritatively  declared  in  doc- 
trine  and  interpretations  that  should  be  accepted 
without  question,  or  it  is  arrived  at  through  un¬ 
trammeled  investigation.  Authority  is  either  a  ere- 

[  165  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

ative  source  which  “makes  good,”  or  it  is  derived 
from  a  creative  source  by  grant  or  concession.  If 
derived,  it  necessarily  is  or  becomes  traditional. 
Traditional  authority,  proclaimed  by  historical 
institutions  still  functioning,  cannot  be  rejected 
without  asserting  the  right  to  question,  to  deny, 
and  to  investigate.  When,  therefore,  Protestant¬ 
ism,  having  rejected  the  authority  of  Rome,  at¬ 
tempted  to  discredit  inductive  science  and  histor¬ 
ical  scholarship,  it  stultified  itself.  Young  men 
of  parts  were  not  slow  to  see  the  implications. 
Strongly  religious  natures  that  were  reverential 
toward  tradition,  began  to  drift  towards  Rome. 
Investigating  minds  turned  to  inductive  science 
or  to  business.  Exceptionally  strong  men  of  both 
types  were  lost  to  the  Protestant  pulpit.” 

What  holds  true  for  the  pulpit  also  applies  to 
the  pew.  The  layman  was  no  less  able  to  perceive 
the  lameness  of  the  theology  passed  out  to  him 
Sunday  by  Sunday.  Attendance  and  interest  in 
the  church  became  perfunctory ;  the  religious  na¬ 
ture  of  the  people  more  and  more  found  its  ex¬ 
pression  in  deeds  of  charity.  It  is  a  fact  that  puz¬ 
zles  many  a  minister  that  in  an  age  when  material¬ 
ism  and  disregard  for  the  church  seem  so  ram¬ 
pant,  nevertheless  the  spirit  of  charity  never  was 
so  marked.  Men  who  never  darken  a  church  door 
spend  liberally  of  time,  strength,  and  money  to 
relieve  the  sufferings  of  the  poverty-stricken,  the 
sick  and  the  afflicted.  The  Red  Cross  and  the  Sal¬ 
vation  Army,  as  well  as  Associated  Charity  or¬ 
ganizations,  are  supported  as  never  before,  while 

[166] 


W HAT  AND  W HERE  IS  GOD  ? 

the  churches  are  hard  put  to  it  to  make  ends  meet 
with  their  budgets. 

The  salvation  of  the  world  depends  upon  the 
discovery  of  the  ground  where  the  imperishable 
truths  of  both  science  and  religion  may  be  found 
to  dovetail  together  into  a  complete  and  harmoni¬ 
ous  whole.  This  cannot  be  accomplished  with  tradi¬ 
tional  orthodox  theology  with  its  deistic  view  of 
God.  There  must  be  a  change  of  base.  The  forces 
of  religion  must  make  their  stand  upon  funda¬ 
mental  truths,  and  must  discard  the  unnecessary 
chaff  with  which  they  have  been  accustomed  to  in¬ 
close  the  kernel  of  truth.  Remembering  the  par¬ 
able  of  the  shield,  it  is  clear  that  the  path  is  one  of 
reconciliation  and  not  of  compromise.  The  ma¬ 
terialistic  view  is  correct  in  its  assertion  of  the  role 
of  resident  forces  in  carrying  on  the  course  of  na¬ 
ture,  but  wrong  in  its  denial  of  a  Conscious  Agen¬ 
cy  in  whose  employ  they  are.  The  traditional  view 
of  theology  is  correct  in  its  assertion  of  the  Con¬ 
sciousness  that  directs  all  things  but  wrong  in  its 
denial  to  that  Being  of  the  means  of  natural  law . 
Each  is  correct  in  its  positive  facts  but  wrong  in 
its  denial  of  the  facts  on  the  other  side.  The  idea  of 
creation  by  Divine  Will  without  natural  process 
is  just  as  contrary  to  the  facts  as  revealed  by 
science,  as  is  the  opposite  materialistic  view  of 
creation  by  natural  processes  without  Divine  Will. 
On  the  theistic  view,  as  set  forth  above,  we  may 
exclaim  with  LeConte,  how  beautifully  both  these 
mutually  antagonistic  and  mutually  exclusive 
views  become  harmonized  or  reconciled — not  com- 

[  167  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 


promised — upon  the  basis  of  creation  by  Divine 
Will  through  natural  process.  So  the  materialistic 
idea  of  a  universe  without  a  God  of  any  kind  save 
the  many  gods  of  resident  forces  is  just  as  impos¬ 
sible  as  the  traditional  notion  of  the  absentee  land¬ 
lord,  of  the  infinite,  yet  how  manlike,  deity  who 
lives  away  from  the  objects  of  His  creation. 

Science  drives  us  to  the  conclusion  that  either 
there  is  no  worshipful  God  at  all,  or  else  He  is 
one  who  is  much  closer  to  nature  and  operates  in 
a  more  direct  way  than  the  traditional  view  allows. 
He  is  at  once  both  an  immanent  and  a  transcen¬ 
dental  Being.  All  the  mighty  works  of  nature  pro¬ 
claim  Him  to  be  endowed  with  conscious  intelli¬ 
gence.  The  operation  of  the  law  of  evolution 
proves  that  He  is  now ,  as  ever ■,  consciously  work¬ 
ing  out  the  universal  plan  which  was  with  Him 
from  the  beginning,  a  plan  which  finds  its  present 
culmination  in  man.  He  is  literally ,  not  figurative¬ 
ly,  in  the  words  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  “Him  in 
whom  we  ( and  all  things)  live  and  move  and  have 
our  being.”  With  materialism  or  pantheism,  “to 
equate  God  with  the  universe  without  remainder, 
exhausts  His  being  and  manifestly  limits  Him  to 
a  definite  comprehension  within  finite  bounds.  He 
is  no  longer  the  Eternal,  the  Infinite  One !  God  is 
in  nature,  and  yet  He  is  more  than  nature.  ...  In 
this  distinction  lies  the  essence  of  the  theistic  con¬ 
tention.  Moreover,  the  absorption  of  all  things  in 
God  reduces  man’s  personality  to  zero.  This  meets 
with  a  very  determined  protest  from  our  self-as¬ 
serting  consciousness,  which  refuses  to  be  merged 

[168] 


What  and  Where  is  God? 

in  the  universal  All.  In  the  relations  between  God 
and  man,  as  in  the  relations  between  God  and 
the  world,  it  is  still  possible  to  hold  that  God  mani¬ 
fests  Himself  to  man  in  the  still  small  voice  within, 
and  yet  that  man  himself  is  more  than  a  manifesta¬ 
tion  of  God.  There  is  a  revelation  of  God  to  man 
in  the  light  of  reason,  in  the  voice  of  conscience, 
and  in  the  inspiration  of  the  truth,  yet  it  is  a  reve¬ 
lation  to  man ;  the  self  receives,  the  self  is  moved, 
the  self  is  preserved  in  its  integrity  as  the  self,  the 
man,  and  not  as  God”  (Hibben).  Or,  as  Mar- 
tineau  says  (“A  Study  of  Religion,”  vol.  II,  p. 
180)  :  “If  truth,  if  righteousness,  if  love  and  faith, 
are  all  an  influx  of  foreign  light,  the  endowments, 
in  virtue  of  which  we  are  susceptible  of  them,  are 
mere  passive  and  recipient  organs  on  to  which  they 
are  delivered,  and  we  have  no  agency  of  our  own. 
But  a  reason  that  does  no  thinking  for  itself,  a 
conscience  that  flings  aside  no  temptation  and 
springs  to  no  duty,  affection  that  toils  in  no  chosen 
service  of  love,  a  religious  sentiment  that  waits  for 
such  faith  as  may  come  into  it,  simply  negative 
their  own  functions  and  disappear.” 

The  immanence  of  God  without  His  simultane¬ 
ous  transcendence  is  unthinkable  on  the  theistic 
postulates.  But  the  one  is  as  necessary  as  the 
other.  We  cannot  avoid  the  belief  in  His  imma¬ 
nence;  we  cannot  conceive  Him  as  one  who  long 
ago  and  once  for  all,  enacted  laws  and  created 
matter  and  energy,  worlds  and  animate  beings, 
and  then  rested  from  His  labors.  His  mind  is  con¬ 
stantly  engaged  and  the  phenomena  of  nature  are 

[169] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

the  objectified  results  of  His  thinking  and  plan¬ 
ning.  The  forces  of  nature  are  but  the  objectified 
forms  of  His  divine  energy.  It  is  on  this  account 
that  the  world  of  matter  and  motion  is  a  “real” 
world;  it  has  an  existence  of  which  we  are  con¬ 
scious,  it  has  a  permanence  despite  its  constant 
flux,  because  it  is  the  manifestation  of  the  eternal 
permanence  of  its  Creator.  It  obeys  the  “laws  of 
nature,”  which  are  regular  and  orderly  because 
they  are  the  expression  of  the  absolute  logic  of 
His  intellectual  processes.  He  is  a  God  of  law  and 
order.  In  their  investigations  of  natural  phenome¬ 
na,  scientists  are,  in  the  words  of  Agassiz,  engaged 
in  thinking  the  Creator’s  thoughts  after  Him. 
Thus  is  seen  the  significance  of  LeConte’s  state¬ 
ment  that  “the  law  of  gravitation  is  the  divine 
method  of  sustentation ;  the  law  of  evolution,  the 
divine  method  of  creation.” 

Our  consideration  of  the  nature  of  God  brings 
us  back  to  and  confirms  our  idealistic  philosophy, 
as  set  forth  in  a  preceding  chapter.  It  reaffirms  the 
notion  that  “there  is  no  ultimate  efficient  force  but 
spirit ,  and  no  really  independent  existence  except 
God.”  Further,  while  philosophical  pantheism 
and  materialism  dissipate  all  our  hopes  of  person¬ 
al  relations  with  God,  the  theistic  view,  here  set 
forth  and  accepted,  preserves  and  deepens  these 
hopes.  It  gives  ground  for  the  most  circumspect 
morality;  we  can  no  longer,  like  Adam,  hope  to 
hide  away  from  the  sight  of  God  when  He  calls. 
The  “all-seeing  eye”  is  no  far  distant  object  that 
may  perchance  overlook  our  misdeeds. 

[  170  ] 


What  and  Where  is  God? 


“Speak  to  Him  thou  for  He  hears,  and  Spirit 
with  Spirit  can  meet — 

Closer  is  He  than  breathing,  and  nearer  than 
hands  and  feet.” 


[171] 


CHAPTER  XII 


EVOLUTION  AND  GENESIS 


It  is  frequently  stated  that  one  cannot  be  an  evo¬ 
lutionist  and  hold  to  his  belief  in  the  Bible  as  a 
revelation  from  God.  The  supposed  antithesis  be¬ 
tween  the  currently  accepted  account  of  creation 
as  given  in  Genesis  and  the  doctrine  of  the  deriva¬ 
tion  of  species  by  descent  with  modification  has 
been  affirmed  on  the  one  hand  by  the  atheistic  ma¬ 
terialists  who  are  opposed  to  all  forms  of  religious 
belief,  and  on  the  other  hand  by  those  who  seek 
to  uphold  the  traditional  theology.  That  the  for¬ 
mer  should  have  taken  this  position,  is  easy  to  un¬ 
derstand  ;  that  the  latter  could  not  foresee  the  ul¬ 
timate  effect  upon  thousands  of  truly  religious 
souls  is  hard  to  understand  in  the  light  of  the  pre¬ 
vious  conflicts  between  science  and  theology.  But 
perhaps  the  real  explanation  lies,  as  we  have  al¬ 
ready  intimated,  in  the  fact  that  the  conflict  is  one 
between  a  new  scientific  discovery  and  the  ignor¬ 
ance  inherited  from  past  generations. 

The  real  question  at  issue  with  reference  to  the 
Book  of  Genesis,  is  that  of  the  value  and  place  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  Christian  life  and  thought. 
The  vast  amount  of  discussion  concerning  it  now 
appearing  in  various  church  papers  indicates  that 

[173] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

it  is  one  of  the  most  vital  and  burning  questions  of 
the  day.  But  this  is  only  the  experience  of  Chris¬ 
tendom  repeated  again  and  again,  for,  as  Freder¬ 
ick  D.  Kershner  remarks  in  “The  Restoration 
Movement”  :x 

“Perhaps  there  is  no  field  in  which  mistaken 
thinking  has  caused  more  harmful  results  than  is 
true  of  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  hu¬ 
man  race  has  suffered  incalculably  because  of  er¬ 
roneous  views  at  this  point.  Old  Testament  ideals, 
uncorrected  by  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  are  largely  responsible  for  the  many  blots 
upon  the  history  of  Christian  peoples  and  nations. 
A  few  illustrations  only  are :  ( 1 )  Church  persecu¬ 
tion,  (2)  bigoted  opposition  to  progress,  (3)  the 
whole  history  of  witch-craft,  (4)  medieval  and 
modern  militarism,  (5)  the  defense  of  slavery, 
(6)  false  conceptions  of  the  Christian  ordinances 
and  doctrines.  .  ,  .  The  necessities  of  the  case  made 
it  impossible  for  the  full  glory  of  the  Divine  Word 
for  man  to  be  revealed  all  at  once,  just  as  we  do 
not  teach  little  children  all  that  grown-up  people 
are  taught.  The  Old  Testament  was  intended  for 
the  childhood  of  humanity.  It  is  a  collection  of 
books  written  at  different  times,  under  different 
circumstances  and  by  different  persons.  It  is  ut¬ 
terly  out  of  the  question  to  quote  every  passage 
in  it  as  of  equal  authority  for  men  and  women  to¬ 
day.  The  only  way  to  get  at  its  real  meaning  and 
value  is  by  studying  the  setting  of  the  different 
books,  observing  carefully  their  nature  and  pur- 

i  The  Standard  Publishing  Co.,  Cincinnati. 

[  174] 


Evolution  and  Genesis 

pose,  and  then  applying  the  truths  they  contain  in 
the  light  of  the  later  revelation  made  through 
Jesus  Christ.  .  .  .  The  Old  Testament,  as  the  au¬ 
thor  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  plainly  shows, 
has  been  fulfilled,  and  in  the  place  of  the  old 
will,  or  covenant,  we  have  the  new.  Of  course,  any 
one  familiar  with  law  knows  that  an  older  will  is 
always  superseded  by  one  of  later  date.  Under 
such  circumstances  the  older  will  is  annulled.  This 
does  not  mean  that  the  old  may  not  contain  much 
that  is  true  and  much  that  is  valuable  and  per¬ 
haps  indispensable  for  its  time,  but  it  does  mean 
that  something  better  and  later  has  taken  its  place 
for  present  purposes. 

“It  is  obvious  in  view  of  the  facts  already  stated, 
that  to  use  the  Old  Testament  as  a  substitute  for 
the  New  is  to  commit  a  grievous  error.  It  is  the 
sort  of  error  which  led  people  to  justify  slavery 
by  appealing  to  the  law  of  Moses,  and  to  hang  and 
burn  innocent  people  under  the  delusion  that  they 
were  witches,  because  the  Mosaic  law  said:  “Thou 
shalt  not  permit  a  witch  to  live.”  The  same  kind 
of  logic  justifies  the  indiscriminate  slaughter  of 
non-combatants  today  by  appealing  to  the  kill¬ 
ing  of  the  Canaanites  or  the  Amalekites  by  the 
people  of  Israel.” 

The  same  author  further  says  in  regard  to  the 
different  methods  of  scriptural  interpretation: 
The  legalistic  “method  of  interpretation  is  the  one 
followed  by  those  who  insist  upon  the  letter  of  the 
Word,  without  seeking  first  for  the  spirit  of  it. 
The  old  Pharisees  were  the  special  advocates  of 

[  175  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

this  view.  Jesus  combatted  it  constantly,  saying 
upon  a  certain  memorable  occasion  that  the  letter 
killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life.  The  legalist 
wants  to  obey  every  jot  and  tittle  of  the  law,  but 
in  his  slavish  devotion  to  the  text  he  almost  invari¬ 
ably  misses  its  real  meaning.  Legalism  is  the  di¬ 
rect  opposite  of  rationalism,  and  is  just  as  far 
away  from  the  truth.  The  two  extremes  of  ration- 
alism  and  legalism  were  exemplified  in  the  time  of 
Christ  in  the  teaching  of  the  Sadducees  and  the 
Pharisees.  The  former  were  the  rationalists  of 
their  day,  and  the  latter  the  legalists.  Both  posi¬ 
tions  were  wrong,  and  both  are  equally  condemned 
in  the  New  Testament.  There  are  many  modern 
legalists,  and  not  a  few  of  them  are  in  the  Protes¬ 
tant  churches.  Wherever  they  are  found,  there  will 
also  be  found  a  narrow,  bigoted,  uncharitable  and 
formalistic  type  of  religion.  Legalism  kills  the 
life  and  leaves  only  the  empty  shell  of  Christian¬ 
ity.  It  blights  the  fairest  flowering  of  the  soul  and 
drives  out  all  of  the  finest  graces  of  the  Christian 
life.  It  is  one  of  the  greatest  foes  of  genuine  Chris¬ 
tianity.  The  Scriptures  themselves  lay  down  the 
correct  method  by  which  they  are  to  be  inter¬ 
preted.  Jesus,  in  His  use  of  the  Old  Testament, 
always  strove  to  get  at  the  principle  involved  re¬ 
gardless  of  the  letter,  and  to  proclaim  supreme 
loyalty  to  that  principle.  He  struck  out  boldly  on 
the  Sabbath-day  question,  and  incurred  the  hostil¬ 
ity  of  the  Pharisees  because  He  insisted  upon  the 
spirit,  rather  than  the  letter,  of  the  law.  He  con¬ 
demned  the  skeptical  rationalism  of  the  Saddu- 

[  l?6  ] 


Evolution  and  Genesis 

cees  no  less  than  the  narrow  legalism  of  the  rival 
party  in  Judaism.  Paul  followed  the  same  line 
of  procedure,  although  technically  a  Pharisee,  in 
his  thinking.  The  principle  of  interpretation  which 
is  involved  is  perfectly  clear.  The  Scriptures  are 
not  to  be  deified.  Their  value  lies  solely  in  the  mes¬ 
sage  which  they  convey.  They  are  the  bearer  of 
certain  great  truths  and  ideals,  and  it  is  these 
truths  and  ideals  which  are  of  supreme  value, 
rather  than  the  words  which  are  used  to  convey 
them  to  the  minds  of  others.  The  Bible  is  not  in¬ 
tended  to  enslave  the  intellect,  but,  rather,  to  set 
it  free.  The  whole  question  is  one  of  the  utmost 
life  and  freedom  versus  formalism  on  the  one  side 
and  destructive  rationalism  on  the  other.” 

We  have  quoted  thus  at  length  from  a  theolo¬ 
gian  generally  recognized  among  those  of  his  own 
communion  as  “strictly  orthodox”  and  from  his 
book  issued  by  the  publishing  house  of  the  most 
conservative  group  of  that  communion,  because  it 
expresses  exactly  the  principle  of  interpretation 
which  we  wish  to  apply  to  the  Book  of  Genesis. 
Furthermore,  as  we  have  attempted  to  set  forth 
above,  his  method  is  philosophically  correct,  in 
that  it  accepts  the  truth  found  partly  in  two  ex¬ 
tremes  and  rejects  the  error  into  which  each  has 
fallen. 

The  purpose  of  the  author  of  Genesis  and  the 
relation  of  the  Biblical  account  of  creation  to  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  has  never,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  present  writer,  been  better  and  more  clearly 
stated  than  by  Fairhurst,  a  man  who,  strange  to 

[  177  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

say,  utterly  and  entirely  misapprehends  and  mis¬ 
understands  the  doctrine  of  evolution  and  its  im¬ 
plications.  In  his  book,  “Organic  Evolution  Con¬ 
sidered,”  pp.  346-348,  he  says: 

“The  cosmogony  in  Genesis  is  very  general.  It 
is  an  outline  painted  with  a  few  bold  strokes.  It 
was  given  to  a  people  who  were  in  the  infancy  of 
civilization,  the  masses  of  whom  were  ignorant 
and  illiterate.  A  complete  history  of  creation,  as  it 
occurred  through  the  long  geological  ages,  would 
have  been  useless  to  them.  They  could  not  have 
understood  it  because  of  its  length  and  complex¬ 
ity,  and  because  they  were  totally  ignorant  of  the 
facts  on  which  the  geological  account  must  be 
based.  If  it  had  been  fully  written  for  them,  it 
wTould  have  been  bewildering.  What  object  could 
have  been  accomplished  by  telling  that  people  that 
trilobites  and  brachiopods  abounded  in  the  Silu¬ 
rian  ;  that  fishes  of  many  kinds  were  very  numer¬ 
ous  in  the  Devonian ;  that  labyrinthodonts  basked 
in  the  sunshine  on  the  shores  of  Carboniferous 
swamps ;  that  mighty  frogs  croaked  in  the  Trias- 
sic ;  that  the  marsupial,  greatest  great,  great,  etc., 
grandfather  of  the  opossum,  was  then  engaged  in 
his  craft  of  robbing  the  nests  of  the  long-tailed 
archaeopteryx;  that  the  zeuglodon  sported  in  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  in  the  Eocene;  that  three  and 
four-toed  horses  of  various  kinds  played  baseball 
with  boulders  in  the  Rocky  Mountain  region,  thus 
ridding  themselves  of  their  surplus  toes,  during 
the  Tertiary ;  that  bears,  tigers,  and  lions  of  huge 
size  fought  each  other,  like  the  Kilkenny  cats,  in 

[178] 


Evolution  and  Genesis 

England  during  the  same  period;  that  monkeys 
chased  each  other  up  and  down  the  trees  and 
played  “hide  and  seek”  in  the  forests  of  the  Plio¬ 
cene  ;  and  that,  by  accident  or  otherwise,  the  an¬ 
thropomorphous,  gorilla-like  ape  lost  his  tail  and 
took  to  intellectual  and  moral  habits,  so  that  some¬ 
time  during  the  Quaternary  Period  he  became 
Adam? 

“All  these  things,  with  a  great  multitude  of 
similar  facts,  which  can  hardly  be  numbered,  are 
of  interest  to  the  geologist  and  the  evolutionist 
with  their  knowledge  of  modern  science,  but  to  the 
people  of  the  time  of  Moses  it  would  have  been  un¬ 
profitable  reading.  The  cosmogony  of  Genesis  had 
an  infinitely  higher  and  nobler  aim  than  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  the  long  list  of  incomprehensible  facts  con¬ 
tained  in  the  geological  record.  It  was  given  to 
impress  upon  the  minds  of  that  people  and  of  the 
world,  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  the  one  omnipo¬ 
tent,  omniscient,  righteous  God  as  the  creator  of 
all  things,  and  to  whom  all  men  are  responsible 
for  their  conduct.  This  teaching  of  Monotheism 
came  upon  the  infant  race  as  a  revelation,  as  a 
flash  from  Heaven,  more  marvelous  than  the  crea¬ 
tion  of  physical  things.  It  was  the  one  great  fact 
that,  above  all  others,  must  be  driven  into  the  heart 
of  the  race — branded  upon  its  mind.  The  account 
in  Genesis  was  for  moral  and  religious  purposes. 
To  serve  these  purposes  in  the  best  possible  way, 
it  was  necessary  that  the  account  should  be  but  an 
outline.” 

Numerous  attempts  have  been  made  to  show 

[  179  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

that  the  account  in  Genesis  is  in  fundamental  har¬ 
mony  with  the  geological  record  by  interpreting 
the  word  “day”  as  meaning  an  indefinitely  long 
period  of  time.  Such  attempts  are  foredoomed  to 
failure,  in  the  opinion  of  the  writer,  because 

1.  The  word  for  “day”  ( yom  in  the  Hebrew), 

is  used  in  the  Hebrew  way  for  a  period  of  twenty- 

four  hours,  as  seen  in  the  expression,  “the  evening 

and  the  morning  were  the  first  day,”  etc.  It  is  a 

well-known  fact  that  the  Hebrews  counted  the 

day  as  beginning  at  sunset  and  continuing  until 

the  succeeding  sunset.  To  obviate  this  difficulty, 

some  have  attempted  to  interpret  the  “evening” 

as  referring  to  the  “chaos”  and  “morning”  as  the 

“order”  which  emerged  from  it!  However,  the 

same  word  for  day  {yom)  is  used  in  Genesis  ii:  2 

and  3  where  reference  is  made  to  the  setting  aside 

of  the  seventh  day  as  a  holy  day  because  on  that 

day  the  Lord  rested  from  all  His  labors.  Is  it  not 

likely  that  the  force  of  the  Sabbath-day  injunction 

would  be  more  impressive  if  yom  were  taken  in 

a  literal  sense,  than  if  in  the  first  six  cases  it  was 

used  to  signify  an  indefinite,  but  very  long  period 

of  time  ?  Is  it  not  clear  that  the  author  had  his  eve 

•/ 

upon  the  religious  significance  of  his  narrative  and 
not  upon  its  scientific  interpretation?  Does  it  not 
appear  to  be  more  sensible,  and  to  do  less  violence 
to  the  sense  of  the  text  to  consider  that  the  author 
of  Genesis  had  no  thought  of  giving  a  lesson  in 
science  ? 

2.  The  attempt  to  correlate  the  “days”  of  Gen¬ 
esis  with  the  “periods”  of  geological  time  cannot 

[180] 


Evolution  and  Genesis 

succeed.  In  the  first  place,  the  Biblical  account 
limits  the  creation  to  six  days.  It  is  not  possible  to 
limit  the  geological  periods  to  six,  unless  by  com¬ 
bining  some  equally  as  distinct  from  each  other 
as  from  those  not  included  in  such  a  “day.”  In  the 
second  place,  the  order  of  the  appearance  of  plants 
and  animals,  not  to  speak  of  the  sun  and  moon, 
cannot,  by  any  process  of  combination  or  elimina¬ 
tion,  be  made  to  accord  with  the  geological  record. 
For  example,  it  is  positively  established  that  many 
different  groups  of  animals,  if  indeed  not  all  the 
“branches,”  had  appeared  before  the  “seed-bear¬ 
ing”  plants;  birds  and  whales,  according  to  Gene¬ 
sis  i:21  were  formed  on  the  fifth  day,  while  the 
reptiles  were  not  produced  until  the  sixth,  where¬ 
as  it  is  absolutely  demonstrated  by  geology  that 
the  reptiles  were  in  existence  and  flourished  great¬ 
ly  before  the  birds  appeared  and  both  came  in 
long  before  man,  whom  Moses  states  was  formed 
on  the  same  sixth  day,  though  apparently  at  a 
later  hour  than  reptiles. 

It  seems  to  the  present  author,  that  no  violence 
is  done  to  our  religious  feelings  if,  accepting  the 
facts  of  geology,  we  still  assert  that  the  author  of 
Genesis  really  intended  to  say  what  a  literal  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  text  naturally  leads  one  to  think. 
The  whole  question  is  one  of  the  “scriptural” 
rather  than  the  “legalistic”  method  of  interpreta¬ 
tion,  as  Kershner  uses  those  terms.  We  must  look 
behind  the  words  used  to  determine  the  “spirit”  of 
the  message.  When  that  is  done  it  becomes  at  once 
a  clear  and  luminous  message.  The  author  of 

[181] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

Genesis  has  simply  used  a  familiar  law  of  peda¬ 
gogy,  that  a  thought  to  be  impressed  upon  the 
mind  of  the  learner  must  be  couched  in  familiar 
terms;  in  language  suited  to  his  understanding. 
Such  an  interpretation  does  not  in  any  way  con¬ 
vict  Moses  of  ignorance  nor  deceit.  The  account  is 
not  untrue.  It  is  simply  adapted  to  the  under¬ 
standing  of  the  kindergarten  class  instead  of  uni¬ 
versity  seniors. 

The  same  method  of  interpretation  avoids  the 
difficulty  inherent  in  the  inconsistencies  so  obvious 
upon  a  comparison  of  the  second  account  of  crea¬ 
tion  in  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis  with  that  in 
the  first.  The  author  was  intent  upon  deepening 
and  indelibly  fixing  the  idea  of  the  One  true  God 
in  the  minds  of  the  Hebrew  people.  He  was  dress¬ 
ing  his  real  message  in  other  words.  He  was  in¬ 
tent  also  upon  emphasizing  the  goodness  of  God 
to  man  in  providing  him  with  the  fruits  of  the  soil 
and  the  dominion  over  the  lower  animals.  The  ac¬ 
count  of  Eve’s  creation  teaches  the  essential  unity 
of  man  and  woman ;  the  idea  that  she  was  bone  of 
his  bone  and  flesh  of  his  flesh  was  a  strong  incentive 
to  conjugal  peace  and  happiness.  It  emphasizes 
God’s  plan  for  the  establishment  of  the  home,  and 
no  race  perhaps  has  exemplified  this  more  con¬ 
sistently  than  have  the  Hebrews. 

The  third  chapter  of  Genesis  teaches  man’s  re¬ 
sponsibility  to  his  Maker  and  the  nature  of  sin,  i.e., 
rebellion  against  His  law  and  the  consequences  of 
disobedience.  It  also  plainly  teaches  the  lesson 
that  innocence  and  virtue  are  not  the  same.  Man 

[  l82  ] 


Evolution  and  Genesis 

could  not  become  truly  virtuous  until  he  had  the 
power  of  choice  between  good  and  evil.  It  is  the 
choice  of  evil  which  causes  man’s  fall;  it  is  when 
man  knowingly  rejects  the  good  and  does  the 
wrong,  that  he  sins.  Under  the  imagery  so  delight¬ 
ful  to  the  oriental  mind,  this  lesson  is  forcefullv 

*  •/ 

taught.  This  chapter  is  no  more  to  be  regarded  as 
a  dry  philosophical  discourse,  than  the  first  is  to 
be  considered  a  treatise  on  science.  The  Hebrew 
of  that  time  could  not  have  understood,  nor  likelv 
would  have  accepted,  the  conclusions  of  a  piece  of 
abstract  philosophical  reasoning,  but  he  could  un¬ 
derstand  and  did  accept,  at  least  in  principle,  the 
same  conclusions  when  brought  to  him  so  con¬ 
cretely  as  in  the  account  of  the  serpent  in  the  Gar¬ 
den  of  Eden.  It  was  a  stroke  of  genius,  if  one  will 
not  acknowledge  it  as  a  divine  inspiration  from 
God,  this  thing  of  appealing  to  the  heart  of  the  un¬ 
learned  Hebrew  people,  through  a  medium  which 
they  loved.  The  Semitic  mind  revelled  in  imagery; 
it  mulled  over  and  over,  and  gradually  assimilated 
the  underlying  lessons  which  Moses  intended  it 
should. 

Does  this  make  out  Moses  a  liar?  Far  from  it; 
his  technique  was  most  artistic  and  refined.  A  bald 
statement  of  his  theology  would  not  have  appealed 
to  his  hearers.  He  adapted  his  language  to  their 
habit  of  mind  and  to  their  understanding.  With 
this  interpretation,  Genesis  becomes  at  once  one 
of  the  world’s  greatest  wonders.  No  product  of 
the  human  mind  has  ever  surpassed  it  and  none 
outside  of  the  Bible  has  equalled  it  as  a  revelation 

[183] 


Evolution  and  Chkistian  Faith 

of  God’s  goodness  and  power.  Is  not  this  evidence 
of  its  divine  inspiration?  What  more  could  be 
said? 

Does  the  doctrine  of  evolution  destroy  the  Book 
of  Genesis?  Has  it  not  rather  led  to  a  fuller  and 
deeper  realization  of  the  truly  wonderful  nature  of 
the  Book?  Is  not  one’s  faith  the  deeper  and  do  not 
the  same  fundamental  truths  remain  and  have  a 
meaning  for  us  today,  though  we  no  longer  think 
as  did  our  forefathers  in  the  childhood  days  of  the 
race?  We  need  only  to  translate  them  into  terms 
suited  to  our  own  age  and  degree  of  development. 
“When  I  was  a  child,  I  spake  as  a  child,  I  under¬ 
stood  as  a  child,  I  thought  as  a  child,”  but  now  that 
I  have  become  a  man,  let  me  put  off,  if  needs  be, 
the  swaddling  clothes  of  my  childish  fancies,  and 
think  as  a  man  should  think,  clearly  and  deeply. 

From  this  point  of  view,  how  many  of  the  dif¬ 
ficulties  in  the  way  of  faith  on  the  part  of  many 
sincere  souls  disappear!  What  has  become  of  the 
supposed  conflict  between  science  and  religion? 
Does  it  not  becomes  clear,  in  the  words  of  J.  Ar¬ 
thur  Thomson,  that: 

“Science  and  Religion  are  incommensurables, 
and  there  is  no  true  antithesis  between  them — 
they  belong  to  different  universes  of  discourse. 
Science  is  descriptive  and  offers  no  ultimate  ex¬ 
planation;  Religion  is  transcendental  and  inter¬ 
pretative,  implying  a  realization  of  a  higher  order 
of  things  than  those  of  sense-experience.  .  .  .The 
so-called  “conflict  between  science  and  religion” 
depends  in  part  on  a  clashing  of  particular  ex- 

[  184  ] 


Evolution  and  Genesis 


pressions  of  religious  belief  with  facts  of  science, 
or  on  a  clashing  of  particular  supposedly  scientific 
philosophies  with  religious  feeling,  or  on  attempts 
to  combine  in  one  statement  scientific  and  religi¬ 
ous  formulations.  .  .  .  But  the  bulk  of  the  conflict 
is  due  to  a  misunderstanding,  to  a  false  antithesis 
between  incommensurables.  While  Science  can 
give  no  direct  support  to  religious  convictions,  be¬ 
cause  its  province  lies  within  the  range  of  sense- 
perceptions,  it  establishes  conclusions  which  re¬ 
ligion  may  utilize,  just  as  philosophy  utilizes 
them,  and  transfigure,  just  as  poetry  transfigures 
them.”  r 


[185] 

v 


CHAPTER  XIII 


EVOLUTION  AND  CHRISTIANITY 


In  a  paper  recently  read  before  a  “Congress”  of 
one  of  the  larger  and  more  influential  religious 
bodies  in  the  United  States,  the  following  state¬ 
ments  occur: 

“It  should  be  noted  that  one  may  be  a  theistic 
evolutionist  and  not  be  a  Christian.  It  is  anoma¬ 
lous  to  speak  of  Christian  evolution.  Evolution 
can  never  be  made  to  harmonize  with  Christ.  His 
early  life  began  and  ended  in  a  miracle.  The  the¬ 
istic  evolutionist  who  is  a  Christian  is  compelled 
to  minimize  the  importance  of  the  miracles,  to 
make  light  of  their  evidential  value,  and  oftentimes 
deny  them  altogether,  which  is  practically  a  denial 
of  Christ  himself.”  ( W.  N.  Briney,  “Evolution  in 
Schools  and  Colleges,”  published  in  The  Christian 
Standard ,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  December  17,  1921.) 

William  Jennings  Bryan  not  long  ago  deliv¬ 
ered  an  address  in  which  he  said‘  “Now,  I  believe 
that  everything  that  attacks  belief  in  God  is  an 
enemy  to  the  church,  and  because  the  church  is  a 
factor  in  civilization,  is  an  enemy  to  civilization; 
and  I  want  just  for  the  moment  here  to  lay  before 
vou  one  matter  that  has  been  on  my  heart.  And 
that  is  the  effect  of  the  doctrine  that  has  respecta¬ 
ble  authority  behind  it  that  is  shaking  the  faith  of 

[  187  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

the  boys  and  girls  in  the  Bible.  And  that  is  the 
doctrine  that  man,  instead  of  being  created  by  the 
Almighty,  with  a  purpose  and  according  to  a  plan, 
is  nothing  but  a  development  from  the  lower  ani¬ 
mals.  There  are  many  who  believe  that  that  doc¬ 
trine  must  be  accepted.  The  fact  that  you  can  find 
no  authority  for  it  in  the  Bible  ought  to  be  suf¬ 
ficient  to  make  a  Christian  hesitate  before  he  ac¬ 
cepts  it.  Take  the  word  of  God  from  the  first  verse 
of  Genesis  to  the  last  of  Revelation;  there  is  not  a 
sentence  or  a  syllable  that  can  be  invoked  to  sup¬ 
port  the  idea  that  man  has  in  him  the  blood  of  the 
brute.” 

The  question  confronting  us  is  this:  Is  the  theo¬ 
ry  of  evolution  anti-Christian?  Mr.  Briney  and 
Mr.  Bryan,  in  company  with  many  others,  say 
that  it  is.  Do  the  facts  in  the  case  bear  out  their 
contention  ? 

One  of  the  favorite  devices  of  those  who  con¬ 
tend  that  “evolution  is  anti-Christian”  is  to  cite 
examples  of  those  who  support  an  anti-Christian 
position  by  reliance  on  the  atheistic  philosophy 
which  they  supposedly  draw  from  their  belief  in 
the  doctine  of  evolution.  We  have  already  shown 
that  philosophically  the  materialistic  position  will 
not  stand  the  test  of  careful  scrutiny.  Further¬ 
more,  materialistic  philosophy  is  not  only  anti- 
Christian,  it  is  anti-religious.  The  believer  in  the 
Koran  or  in  Buddhism  would  call  these  same  per¬ 
sons  anti-Mahommedan,  or  anti-Buddhist.  Athe¬ 
ism  is  due  to  a  state  of  mind,  which  has  always  had 
a  sporadic  existence  everywhere.  The  genus  ex- 

[188] 


Evolution  and  Christianity 

isted  long  before  the  discovery  of  organic  evolu¬ 
tion;  the  species  may  have  changed,  but  that  is 
all!  It  is  clearly  not  proper  therefore  to  lay  the 
blame  for  their  atheism  upon  the  doctrine  of  evo¬ 
lution.  Once  let  the  church  perceive  evolution  as 
God’s  plan  of  creation  and  accept  and  teach  it  as 
such,  and  then  it  will  be  found  that  the  atheists 
will  have  shifted  the  grounds  for  their  unbelief  to 
some  other  proposition.  That  atheistic  materiali- 
ists  have  used  the  doctrine  of  evolution  in  pro¬ 
pagating  their  theory,  it  is  not  our  purpose  to 
deny.  But  V oltaire,  who  did  not  have  the  advan¬ 
tage  of  the  later  discovery  of  evolution  to  refy 
upon,  used  the  theory  of  gravitation  to  the  same 
end.  In  fact  he  made  it  the  basis  of  his  “skepti¬ 
cism”;  but  now  who  hears  any  one  arguing  that 
the  law  of  gravitation  has  destroyed  his  faith  in 
the  Christian  religion?  The  fact  that  some  atheists 
who  are  also  evolutionists  have  been  so  vociferous 
in  proclaiming  their  views  has  had  its  effect,  no 
doubt,  in  producing  the  wide-spread  notion  that 
evolution  is  necessarily  anti-Christian.  It  is  time 
that  the  many  scientists  who  are  not  materialists 
should  make  known  their  philosophy  and  religious 
faith;  they  have  perhaps  been  blameworthy  in 
keeping  silent  under  great  provocation;  but  the 
average  scientist  hates  the  appearance  of  contro¬ 
versy.  He  is  inclined  to  “keep  cool”;  to  weigh 
questions  of  fact  with  deliberation  and  calmness 
of  judgment;  he  is  not  of  the  temperament  which 
leads  one  to  mix  in  affairs  where  prejudice  and 
pride  of  opinion  are  rampant. 

[  189] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

The  thoughtful  evolutionist  realizes  fully  that 
the  Christian  religion  has  a  scientific  basis  in  man’s 
ethical  nature.  Its  results  have  been  subjected  to 
centuries  of  living  experiment  and  have  stood  the 
test  as  clearly  and  as  fully  as  any  other  scientific 
fact.  If  for  no  other  reason,  a  scientist,  who  really 
gives  the  matter  the  proper  consideration,  must 
conclude  that  the  essentials  of  Christianity  are 
true,  for  the  very  same  reason  that  he  accepts  a 
theory  as  true  in  his  own  particular  field,  for  ex¬ 
ample,  the  theory  of  evolution,  namely,  because 
“it  works,”  that  is,  under  specified  conditions  it 
brings  about  the  specified  results,  or  if  it  fails  to 
do  so  in  any  particular  case  (experiment)  it  is 
because  of  a  difference  in  the  circumstances  or 
factors  involved.  Accepting  then  the  conclusion, 
as  we  feel  we  must,  that  the  Christian  religion  is 
true  and  that  evolution  is  an  established  fact,  the 
two  cannot  be  incompatible;  evolution  cannot  be 
anti-Christian. 

A  thorough-going  evolutionist,  and  at  the  same 
time,  a  devout  and  active  Christian  is  the  well- 
known  dean  of  American  botanists,  Dr.  J ohn  M. 
Coulter.  In  discussing  this  very  point  he  says : 

“The  fact  is  that  these  two  great  fields  (evolution 
and  Christianity),  so  far  from  being  contradic¬ 
tory,  are  mutually  helpful.  In  this  way  the  revela¬ 
tion  of  God  in  nature  has  supplemented  His  reve¬ 
lation  through  Christ.  I  find  nothing  more  helpful 
to  the  student  and  leader  of  men  than  a  clear  ap¬ 
preciation  of  the  working  of  evolution  as  exem¬ 
plified  in  plants  and  animals.  Evolution  teaches 

[190] 


Evolution  and  Christianity 

that  progress  is  gradual ;  that  a  better  is  progress 
toward  the  best;  that  sudden  radical  changes  are 
not  to  be  expected ;  that  the  future  has  its  roots  in 
the  present.  It  teaches  that  revolutions  are  not  the 
ordinary  way  of  working,  and  that  reformation 
may  be  very  slow.  It  forbids  unreasonable  de- 
mands  upon  the  individual  or  upon  society,  and 
discountenances  the  usual  type  of  reformer.  It 
shows  that  there  have  been  no  universal  catastro¬ 
phes  and  new  creations,  but  that  the  present  has 
gradually  evolved  from  the  past,  and  that  the  fu¬ 
ture  will  appear  in  the  same  gradual  way.  Fur¬ 
thermore,  it  shows  that  advance  in  a  certain  di¬ 
rection  may  not  be  uniform,  for  there  are  periods 
of  apparent  recession,  as  well  as  those  of  more 
rapid  advance.  The  results  are  only  apparent  in 
the  long  view  over  long  periods  of  time,  when  the 
tossing  back  and  forth  of  surface  waves  disap¬ 
pears,  and  the  steady  advance  of  the  slow-moving 
current  becomes  apparent. 

“Perhaps  most  important  of  all,  it  teaches  that 
man  is  a  poor  interpreter  of  individual  events,  and 
has  no  means  of  deciding  whether  they  contribute 
to  advance  or  not.  Hence  it  must  lead  to  cautious 
and  charitable  judgments ;  but  at  the  same  time  it 
supplies  a  strong  ground  of  confidence  that  there 
must  be  eventual  progress.  Some  of  the  minor  de¬ 
tails  of  evolution  may  be  useful  to  the  pessimist, 
but  its  whole  sweep  justifies  broad  optimism.  It  is 
certainly  true  that  the  message  of  Christianity 
must  not  be  imperilled  by  an  ignorant  contradic¬ 
tion  of  demonstrated  facts.  It  is  the  Christian 

[  191  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

claim  that  God  has  revealed  Himself  to  man  not 
merely  in  the  words  of  Scripture,  but  also  in  the 
works  of  nature.  It  would  seem  likely,  therefore, 
that  the  revelation  of  Scripture  is  supplementary 
to  that  of  nature,  containing  further  but  not  con¬ 
tradictory  revelation.  It  would  seem  more  logical, 
therefore,  to  read  our  knowledge  of  nature  into 
our  interpretation  of  Scripture,  than  to  interpret 
nature  by  our  conceptions  of  Scripture.  The  fre¬ 
quent  attempts  to  interpret  natural  phenomena 
by  conceptions  derived  from  Scripture  have  so 
often  ended  disastrously  that  a  reversal  of  the  pro¬ 
cess  might  be  suggested.  That  these  disasters  do 
not  involve  the  Scriptures  simply  demonstrates 
that  the  conclusions  were  unessential.”1 

One  other  paragraph  from  Coulter  is  apropos 
to  the  character  of  the  arguments  set  forth  in  the 
addresses  of  Mr.  Briney  and  Mr.  Bryan  already 
referred  to,  and  for  that  reason  indulgence  is 
craved  for  its  quotation: 

“The  thoughtful  Christian  certainly  appreci¬ 
ates  the  fact  that  the  presentation  of  his  religion 
must  be  adjusted  to  the  increasing  body  of  scien¬ 
tific  truth.  To  hazard  religion  upon  the  issue  in¬ 
volved  in  denying  matters  of  definite  experience 
is  not  to  be  thought  of.  In  a  scientific  age  the  re¬ 
sult  would  be  to  alienate  the  increasing  thousands 
who  have  breathed  the  atmosphere  of  the  modern 
laboratory,  and  to  convert  a  powerful  and  helpful 

i  John  M.  Coulter,  “Is  Evolution  Anti-Christian?”,  in  The  Christian 
Century,  Chicago,  Dec.  8,  1921,  p.  12. 

[192] 


Evolution  and  Christianity 

influence  into  a  serious  obstruction.  One  of  the 
fundamental  blunders  of  the  old  theological  re¬ 
gime  was  its  assumption  of  authority  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  details  of  scientific  thought.  Grievous 
injury  to  the  cause  of  Christianity  has  been  done 
by  ex  cathedra  statements  in  reference  to  the 
methods  and  doctrines  of  science  by  those  who  are 
not  qualified  to  speak  upon  such  subjects.  For  one 
to  pass  upon  matters  that  belong  to  specialists  in 
another  field  of  investigation  is  to  imperil  his  real 
message.  .  .  .  Any  opinion  based  upon  ignorance 
is  essentially  prejudiced  and  worthless,  and  must 
react  unfavorably  upon  the  cause  it  is  claimed  to 
represent.  As  Christians  we  must  recognize  in 
scientific  investigation  a  very  special  field  of  work, 
whose  announced  results  are  to  be  received  with 
respect  and  caution,  and  concerning  the  truth  of 
which  only  scientific  investigation  is  competent  to 
decide.” 

The  mistake  made  by  practically  all  opponents 
of  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is  that  of  confusing 
the  Darwinian  theory  of  natural  selection,  or  the 
survival  of  the  fittest,  with  evolution  itself.  More¬ 
over,  recognition  is  given  to  only  one  of  Darwin’s 
factors,  namely,  to  what  may  be  called  the  lethal 
(death)  factor.  Huxley’s  pessimistic  view  of  na¬ 
ture  as  a  “gladiator’s  show,”  with  every  organism 
red  in  tooth  and  claw,  ravenous  and  destructive 
as  a  wolf,  seems  to  complete  their  conception  of 
“evolution.”  “The  cruel  law  under  which  the 
strong  kill  off  the  weak,”  “the  law  of  hate” 
(Bryan),  such  are  the  expressions  used.  They 

[193] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

overlook  even  in  the  Darwinian  theory  itself  the 
fact  that  the  survival  of  the  fit  does  not  mean 
necessarily  the  destruction  of  the  individual,  but 
rather  want  of  success  in  the  production  of  off¬ 
spring.  The  opponents  of  “evolution”  overlook 
entirely  the  factors  of  parental  love  and  care,  of 
sociality  and  cooperation  among  fellows  of  the 
same  species ;  mutual  aid  has  been  at  least  as  great 
a  factor  as  strength  and  courage.  In  the  words  of 
J.  Arthur  Thomson  (“Evolution,”  p.  248)  :  “The 
ideal  of  evolution  is  thus  no  gladiator’s  show,  but 
an  Eden;  and  though  competition  can  never  be 
wholly  eliminated — the  line  of  progress  is  thus  no 
straight  line  but  at  most  an  asymptote — it  is 
much  for  our  pure  natural  history  to  see  no  longer 
struggle,  but  love  as  ‘creation’s  final  law.’  ” 

But  if  the  Christianity  of  the  New  Testament 
is  good  and  true,  as  we  believe  it  is,  the  discoveries 
of  science  should  not  contradict  it  but  complete 
its  verification.  “As  a  matter  of  fact  they  have 
been  verifying  it.  The  generalizations  of  physics 
and  biology  have  verified  the  factor  of  truth  in  the 
doctrine  of  foreordination.  The  generalizations  of 
biology  and  psychology  have  verified  the  factor  of 
truth  in  the  doctrine  of  inherited  sin.  And  now, 
our  latest  psychology  verifies  the  doctrine  of  re¬ 
generation.  Experimentally  it  demonstrates  that 
the  Old  Adam  of  inherited  instinct  (or  original 
nature )  can  be  dissociated  from  the  stimuli  that  it 
has  heretofore  reacted  to  and  associated  with 
stimuli  to  which  it  will  thenceforth  react  “in  new¬ 
ness  of  life.”  Instincts,  habits,  imagination,  intel- 

[  194  ] 


Evolution  and  Christianity 

lectual  reflection  and  purpose  all  can  be  “recondi¬ 
tioned,”  thereby  renewing  “the  whole  man.”  The 
renewing  does  not  reach  or  affect  the  germplasm, 
it  cannot  be  biologically  transmitted  to  subse¬ 
quent  generations;  to  this  extent  the  Old  Adam 
survives,  but  each  generation,  after  it  is  born,  can 
be  morally  regenerated,  in  some  degree.”  (F.  H. 
Giddings,  in  an  article  in  The  Independent , 
August  20,  1921.) 

Evolution  is  consistent  with  the  doctrine  that 
Christian  character  is  a  gradual  growth  and  de¬ 
velopment.  It  teaches  that  strait  and  narrow  is  the 
way  of  salvation.  It  shows  that  those  who  sin 
against  the  Creator’s  laws  must  pay  the  penalty. 
Time  and  again  have  species  no  less  than  individu¬ 
als  sought  the  easy  downward  way  that  leads  to 
extinction.  Time  and  again  has  it  been  shown  that 
only  in  the  struggle  against  odds,  in  the  choice  of 
the  path  that  tells  for  the  good  of  the  race  rather 
than  the  immediate  satisfaction  of  the  individual 
desires,  true  progress  and  ultimate  salvation  lie. 
On  all  sides  nature  offers  a  choice  between  good 
and  evil,  and  the  reward  or  punishment  is  sure. 
This  surely  is  the  doctrine  of  New  Testament 
Christianity. 

The  opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
sometimes  assert  the  divinity  and  miraculous  ori¬ 
gin  of  Christ  and  in  the  same  breath  demand  that 
evolution  “account  for  Him.”  Now,  but  a  mo¬ 
ment’s  reflection  is  needed  to  see  that  the  demand 
is  preposterous.  If  the  divinity  of  Christ  be  ad¬ 
mitted,  both  He  and  His  origin  are  at  once  re- 

[195] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

moved  entirely  from  the  field  of  operation  for 
evolution.  Evolution  is  a  law  of  nature;  on  the 
hypothesis  of  His  relationship  to  the  Godhead  as 
set  forth  in  the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  the 
Christ  could  not,  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  term,  be 
'  a  part  of  nature.  The  Creator  must  have  existed 
before  the  thing  created,  and  in  the  Gospel  accord¬ 
ing  to  John  we  are  expressly  told:  “All  things 
were  made  by  Him;  and  without  Him  was  not 
anything  made  that  was  made.”  Evolution  there¬ 
fore  could  have  had  no  part  in  the  production  of  a 
divine  Christ.  There  is  no  precedent  in  nature,  so 
far  as  we  know,  for  the  incarnation;  it  can  only  be 
accepted  by  the  believer  as  a  unique  event;  it  is 
not  to  the  discredit  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
that  it  cannot  account  for  Him. 

Evolution  is  also  asked  to  account  for  the  mir¬ 
acles  of  Christ.  The  reply  to  this  demand  is  im¬ 
plied  in  what  has  just  been  said.  Here  again  the 
demand  is  for  something  which  does  not  fall  with¬ 
in  the  realm  of  evolution.  Evolution  does  not 
limit  the  power  of  the  Omnipotent  One;  it  only 
expresses  the  method  by  which  the  Creator  chose 
to  work  out  the  creation  of  nature  in  so  far  as  it  is 
manifest  to  finite  minds.  Who  can  say  what  other 
“laws”  of  God  there  may  be,  which  are  not  opera¬ 
tive  in  the  field  that  is  usually  comprehended  in 
the  term  “nature,”  and  are  therefore  beyond  the 
apprehension  of  the  human  mind?  In  fact,  can  hu¬ 
man  intellect  actually  apprehend  the  operation  of 
any  so-called  “natural  law?”  Is  it  to  be  supposed, 
however,  that  the  God  of  law  and  order,  which  all 

[196] 


Evolution  and  Christianity 

nature  proclaims  Him  to  be,  would  ever  work  in 
a  “lawless”  manner?  Such  an  idea  is  repugnant  to 
all  revelations  of  the  Divine  Nature,  which  we 
possess. 

Every  observation  and  experience  of  man  con¬ 
firms  him  in  the  belief  that  God  works  onlv  in  ac- 
cord  with  His  own  self -established  laws.  Is  it 
probable,  therefore,  that  in  the  recorded  miracles 
of  Christ,  we  may  find  infractions  of  God’s  laws? 
To  ask  the  question  is  to  answer  it.  Clearly,  they 
could  not  have  been  infractions  of  the  Divine 
laws.  If  the  Spirit  of  God  was  incarnate  in  the 
Christ,  then  it  was  impossible  for  God  to  act  con¬ 
trary  to  His  own  rules  of  conduct,  in  connection 
with  His  wonderful  works.  But  the  Infinite  com¬ 
prehends  not  only  those  things  known  and  un¬ 
derstood  by  the  finite,  but  also  those  beyond  the 
comprehension  of  the  human  mind;  otherwise 

there  could  be  no  Infinitv.  In  this  Infinite  com- 

%/ 

prehension  there  is  room  for  laws  of  which  the 
mind  of  man  has  no  inkling;  they  belong  to  the 
realm  of  the  super-human,  i.e to  the  realm  be¬ 
yond  the  power  of  man  to  control  or  understand. 
Any  miracle  of  the  divine  Son  of  God,  while  it 
may  seem  to  contravene  the  known  laws  of  nature, 
must  be  therefore  in  accord  with  some  higher  law 
of  which  the  human  mind  can  at  present,  at  least, 
form  no  conception. 

The  law  of  gravitation  holds  universally  in  na¬ 
ture;  nothing  has  ever  been  known  to  “break”  it. 
Yet  it  is  possible  to  supersede  the  law  of  gravita¬ 
tion  by  other  laws,  the  laws  of  aeronautics  for  ex- 

[  197  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

ample,  and  man  flies  in  his  heavier-than-air  ma¬ 
chines.  A  century  ago  the  flight  of  a  man,  such  a 
common  sight  today,  would  have  been  considered 
a  “miracle” — a  wonderful  thing,  in  the  literal  sig¬ 
nificance  of  the  term.  But  today,  because  we  in  a 
measure  understand  how  it  is  done,  it  is  not  mirac¬ 
ulous  to  us.  The  record  of  Christ’s  miracles  is  one 
of  what  are  still  and  probably  always  will  remain 
“wonderful”  works  to  us,  because  they  could  only 
have  been  the  result  of  knowledge  which  infinitely 
transcends  our  human  powers ;  a  knowledge  which 
can  employ  forces  by  which  the  ordinary  laws  of 
nature  may  be  put  in  abeyance,  not  broken.  With 
the  miracles,  therefore,  evolution  has  nothing  to 
do. 

The  point  is  that  evolution  is  confined  to  the 
mechanism  of  nature,  and  is  but  the  tool  of  the 
Omnipotent  One,  the  Spirit  that  operates  in  na¬ 
ture.  It  is  His  wheel,  so  to  speak,  on  which  He 
molds  the  plastic  clay  of  the  organisms  into  those 
forms  He  desires.  The  Christian  Religion  is  con-  v 
cerned  not  with  the  mechanism  of  nature,  but  with 
our  relation  to  the  Spirit  of  God.  Its  plane  of  op¬ 
eration  is  a  higher  and  totally  distinct  one.  Evolu¬ 
tion  and  Christianity  therefore  meet  only  in  the 
operation  of  the  Divine  Will  in  man.  Evolution  is 
God's  method  of  operation  in  the  realm  of  nature ; 
Christianity  is  God's  plan  of  operation  in  the  spir¬ 
itual  world.  The  natural  man ,  the  product  of  the 
law  of  evolution becomes  transformed  through 
the  Gospel  of  Christ  into  spiritual  accord  with  the 
Father ,  becomes  the  spiritual  child  of  God  by 

[198] 


Evolution  and  Christianity 

adoption ,  and  thus  attains  the  hope  of  personal 
immortality . 

The  very  least  that  could  be  said  of  the  relation 
of  evolution  to  Christianity  would  be  that  they  are 
incommensurables,  and  as  such  evolution  leaves 
the  Christian  Religion  exactly  where  it  has  always 
been,  free  to  stand  or  fall  upon  the  evidence  for  its 
divine  origin .  The  doctrine  of  evolution  presents 
no  difficulties  too  great  to  be  harmonized  with  the 
gospel  of  Christ.  It  has  no  quarrel  with  His  birth, 
life,  death  or  resurrection.  The  theistic  evolution¬ 
ist  is  not  “compelled  to  minimize  the  importance 
of  the  miracles,  to  make  light  of  their  evidential 
value  or  to  deny  them  altogether.”  Theistic  evo¬ 
lution  does  not  attack  a  belief  in  God,  but  affords 
the  strongest  possible  evidence  of  His  existence. 
As  the  most  potent  evidence  of  a  man  is  that  of  his 
works,  so  evolution,  the  method  of  God’s  work  in 
nature,  is  potent  evidence  of  the  existence  and 
power  and  wisdom  of  God.  The  doctrine  of  evolu¬ 
tion  cannot  he  an  enemy  of  the  church,  if  fairly  re¬ 
ceived  by  those  in  ecclesiastical  authority,  for  it 
aids  and  strengthens  Christian  faith  and  charac¬ 
ter.  The  doctrine  of  evolution  teaches  more  than 
anything  else  that  man  is  the  culminating  achieve¬ 
ment  in  God’s  plan  of  creation ;  that  it  was  by  no 
mere  chance  that  he  arrived  when  and  where  he 
did,  but  that  he  had  been  foreseen  and  foreor¬ 
dained  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  The  fact 
that  the  Bible  does  not  distinctly  teach  the  doc- 
trine  is  not  one  to  be  counted  against  it,  for  there 
are  many  different  doctrines  which  no  one  doubts 

[ 199  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

to  be  true,  which  are  not  taught  in  the  Bible,  be¬ 
cause  they ,  as  well  as  evolution ,  are  not  germane 
to  the  purpose  for  which  the  Bible  was  written . 

The  greatest  error  of  theology  has  usually  been 
a  belated  alliance  with  outgrown  scientific  theory. 
The  theologian  often  lacks  the  training  neces¬ 
sary  to  enable  him  to  discern  the  current  trend  in 
scientific  thought.  This  is  exemplified  clearly  in 
his  “discovery”  of  the  weaknesses  inherent  in  Dar- 
winism — a  condition  of  things  known  so  long  ago 
to  biologists  that  they  had  passed  on  to  the  con¬ 
sideration  of  other  more  important  matters.  Un¬ 
aware  apparently  of  the  true  relation  of  Darwin¬ 
ism  to  the  doctrine  of  evolution  as  it  is  understood 
by  scientists  today,  the  theologians,  in  some  cases 
at  least,  seem  unable  to  apprehend  that  science  is 
a  living,  growing  organism,  and  so  they  have 
dropped  back  to  champion  a  dead  and  badly  de¬ 
cayed  scientific  theory — that  of  special  creation. 
Unless  theology  remains  plastic  enough  to  adapt 
itself  to  new  knowledge,  it  fossilizes  and  loses  its 
hold  upon  its  day.  This  is  the  condition  in  which 
friends  of  religion  find  much  of  the  current  the¬ 
ology. 


;  200  ] 


CHAPTER  XIV 


THE  SWING  OF  THE  PENDULUM 


When  only  a  few  years  ago,  in  his  thoughtful 
little  volume,  “A  Critique  of  the  Theory  of  Evo¬ 
lution”  (p.  38) ,  Professor  Morgan  wrote  that  the 
conflict  between  science  and  theology  over  the 
question  of  special  creation  vs.  evolution  had 
ended,  and  that  it  was  unlikely  that  it  would  ever 
again  be  revived,  he  spoke  neither  as  a  prophet 
nor  the  son  of  a  prophet!  The  year  1921  witnessed 
the  unexpected  revival  of  the  old  conflict  in  viru¬ 
lent  form;  nay,  more,  the  calendar  was  turned 
back  three  centuries  and  even  the  old  dispute  over 
the  form  of  the  earth  arose  from  the  grave !  In  the 
city  of  Zion  ( Illinois )  the  school  children  are  com¬ 
pelled  by  theological  authority  expressed  through 
the  civil  government  to  learn  that  the  earth  is  flat 
“like  a  pie,  surrounded  by  a  circle  of  water,  in¬ 
closed  by  an  outer  circle  of  impenetrable  ice!”  In 
Kentucky,  a  board  of  education  is  reported  to 
have  dismissed  a  teacher  from  a  position  in  the 
public  schools  because  she  taught  that  the  earth  is 
round ;  and  this  dismissal  is  said  to  have  been  sup¬ 
ported  by  a  decision  of  a  court  of  law,  to  the  effect 
that  this  teaching  is  contrary  to  the  plain  state¬ 
ment  of  the  Bible,  and  therefore  contrary  to  fact, 

[201] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

and  justifies  the  action  of  the  school  board!  Fur¬ 
thermore,  a  “congress”  composed  of  about  seven 
hundred  delegates  from  twenty-six  states,  repre¬ 
senting  one  of  the  religious  bodies  among  the  more 
important  in  the  United  States  on  account  of  its 
numerical  strength,  devoted  practically  its  whole 
time  to  a  discussion  of  the  prevalence  of  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  evolution  in  its  schools  and  colleges,  and 
appointed  a  committee  to  investigate  the  situation 
with  a  view  to  the  withholding  of  all  financial  sup¬ 
port  from  such  as  might  be  found  guilty  of  this 
“heresy.”  At  least  twro  state  conventions  of  an- 
other  religious  body,  even  greater  in  number  of 
communicants  than  that  just  referred  to,  took 
similar  action,  wdiile  the  state  of  Kentucky  came 
near  enacting  a  law  forbidding  the  teaching  of  this 
scientific  doctrine  in  any  school  supported  by  pub¬ 
lic  funds.  The  situation  provokes  one  to  wonder 
whether  by  some  magic  process  the  scroll  of  time 
may  not  have  been  turned  back  three  centuries  to 
the  days  of  Copernicus  and  Galileo. 

Those  who  have  the  deepest  regard  for  the  fu¬ 
ture  welfare  of  the  Christian  religion  cannot  but 
hold  grave  fears  for  the  outcome  of  this  peculiar 
revival  of  the  old,  antiquated  ideals  and  methods 
of  the  dark  ages.  History  apparently  has  taught 
no  lessons  to  those  responsible  for  the  present  situ¬ 
ation.  At  the  very  time  when  the  church  thinks  she 
has  discovered  a  wdde-spread  indifference  to,  if 
not  dislike  for,  religion  and  the  church,  she  at¬ 
tempts  to  make  use  of  the  very  force  which  per¬ 
haps  more  than  anything  else  has  brought  about 

[  202  ] 


The  Swing  of  the  Pendulum 

the  condition  which  so  alarms  her.  As  Paulsen 
(“An  Introduction  to  Philosophy,”  page  335)  has 
well  said:  “ Faith  is  by  nature  the  tenderest,  freest ; 
and  innermost  function  of  life.  It  perishes  as  soon 
as  constraint ;  the  fear  of  man  and  politics  come 
into  play.  That  is  the  most  evident  of  all  the  truths 
which  the  history  of  Western  nations  teaches .” 
And  yet  it  is  a  truth  which,  despite  over  three  hun¬ 
dred  years  of  American  history,  many  of  us  have 
not  learned.  Our  forefathers  built  our  nation  up¬ 
on  the  foundation  of  religious  liberty,  of  the  sepa¬ 
ration  between  church  and  state;  our  generation 
is  rushing  pell-mell  into  the  old  condition  of  a 
church-controlled  state;  into  the  mediaeval  doc¬ 
trine  that  all  men  must  be  forced  bv  law  to  an  out- 
ward  conformity  to  an  established  form  of  re- 
ligious  dogma.  Were  the  various  denominations 
all  harmoniously  united,  this  might  not  be  prac¬ 
tically  so  serious  a  matter;  there  might  be  such 
unanimity  of  opinion  as  to  secure  the  assent  of  the 
great  majority  to  any  such  an  enactment  as  that 
proposed  in  Kentucky.  But  with  conditions  what 
they  are,  such  unanimity  is  impossible;  the  at¬ 
tempt  to  put  such  a  principle  into  practice  can¬ 
not  but  bring  about  strife  and  contentions;  bitter¬ 
ness  of  feeling  and  possibly  disturbance  of  the 
civil  peace  are  not  remote  possibilities.  The  prin¬ 
ciple  is  wrong.  Apparently  one  sect  has  almost 
sufficient  political  power  in  Kentucky  today  to 
write  its  own  peculiar  views  into  law.  What  is  to 
hinder  this  same  sect  tomorrow,  provided  only  it 
has  a  working  majority  in  the  state  government, 

[  203  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

from  passing  a  law  compelling  every  man,  woman, 
and  child  to  do  without  the  services  of  a  regular 
physician  in  the  treatment  of  bodily  ailments,  and 
to  submit  themselves  onlv  to  some  form  of  so- 
called  “divine  healing”?  Did  they  but  realize  it, 
the  fundamental  sciences  upon  which  the  practice 
of  medicine  is  based  are  themselves  grounded  up¬ 
on  the  doctrine  of  evolution!  Is  it  too  much  to  ex¬ 
pect  that  in  the  near  future,  therefore,  Kentucky 
will  forbid  the  practice  of  medicine? 

A  true  religion,  or  rather,  a  true  view  of  re¬ 
ligion  will  “not  demand  that  we  think  what  can¬ 
not  be  thought,  but  that  we  believe  what  satisfies 
the  heart  and  the  will,  and  does  not  contradict 
reason”  (Paulsen,  p.  334) .  The  estrangement  be¬ 
tween  many  minds,  trained  in  science,  and  the 
church  “is  evidently  due  to  the  fact  that  religion 
has  been  converted  into  a  pseudo-scientific  system 
for  whose  formulae  an  unqualified  recognition  is 
demanded.  The  spirit  of  freedom  and  the  more 
sensitive  theoretical  conscience  of  modem  times 
rebels  against  the  attempt  to  subject  it  to  such 
dogmas  constructed  by  human  hands.  It  has  been 
customary  to  lay  infidelity  on  the  wickedness  of 
the  will  which  refuses  to  be  subjected  to  a  whole¬ 
some  discipline.  Perhaps  there  is  some  truth  in  the 
saying.  But  it  would  be  wilful  self-delusion  to  at¬ 
tribute  all  estrangement  from  the  church  and  all 
opposition  to  faith  to  this  cause”  (Paulsen,  p. 
334). 

The  attempt  to  forbid  any  certain  doctrine  by 
civil  law  is  unfortunate  not  only  because  of  the 

[  204  ] 


The  Swing  of  the  Pendulum 

union  of  church  dogma  with  state  enactment,  but 
also  because  it  will  alienate  many  of  the  sincerest 
believers  in  Christianity  who  are  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  both  that  religion  and  the  scientific  doc¬ 
trine  of  evolution.  Most  of  these  are  persons  of 
keen  minds,  deep  thought,  and  earnestness  of  pur¬ 
pose;  they  are  just  the  type  of  individual  whom 
the  church  can  least  afford  to  lose.  Were  it  a  mat¬ 
ter  vital  to  Christianity,  it  might  be  comprehen¬ 
sible  that  the  church  would  take  just  the  stand  that 
some  of  her  misguided  adherents  are  taking ;  but 
such  is  not  the  case.  Religion  in  general,  and  Chris¬ 
tianity  in  particular,  “does  not  rest  upon  a  hy¬ 
pothesis  concerning  the  origin  of  living  beings, 
any  more  than  it  rests  upon  a  definite  idea  of  the 
astronomical  form  of  the  world.  Its  concern  with 
such  matters,  if  it  has  any  at  all,  is  only  with  the 
objective  truth  and  subjective  truthfulness  of  our 
knowledge.  What  is  dangerous  to  it  as  well  as  to 
all  things  human  is  the  alliance  with  error  and 
falsehood.  The  church  ought  to  have  learned  so 
much  at  least  from  her  unfortunate  conflict  with 
modern  cosmology  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
that  it  is  under  no  circumstances  advisable  for  her 
to  affiliate  with  any  scientific  system.  When  the 
church  made  the  Aristotelian-Ptolemaic  cosmolo¬ 
gy  an  article  of  faith,  she  applied  the  axe  to  the 
roots  of  her  faith.  Every  blow  that  struck  the  false 
theory  also  struck  the  church.  The  same  effect  is 
bound  to  ensue  if  the  church  declares  a  certain  bio¬ 
logical  view  as  part  of  her  doctrine.  The  persons 
who  see  in  Darwinism  the  final  destruction  of  re- 

[  205  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

ligion  well  illustrate  this  fact.  By  removing  the 
Mosaic  account  of  creation,  and  Adam  and  Eve, 
they  say,  Darwin  has,  at  the  same  time,  made  su¬ 
perfluous  for  biology,  “the  hypothesis  of  a  God.” 
.  .  .  From  youth  many  have  been  taught  to  re¬ 
gard  the  existence  of  God  as  proved  and  assured 
by  the  teleological  argument ;  now  they  no  longer 
have  confidence  in  the  old  proof  and  consequently 
reject  the  thing  itself.  Nothing  is  more  dangerous 
to  a  good  cause  than  false  arguments”  (Paulsen, 
p.  158).  These  words  are  peculiarly  apropos  to¬ 
day  in  this  country,  though  written  in  a  foreign 
land  over  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago. 

The  state  of  mind  of  one  who  has  lost  his  re¬ 
ligious  faith  because  of  some  scientific  doctrine  is 
“evidently  preconditioned  by  the  original  intellec- 
tualistic  bent  of  his  religious  convictions,  formed 
by  his  early  instruction.  He  has  a  feeling  of  having 
been  cheated  by  false  theories  and  proofs,  and 
therefore  looks  with  distrust  upon  the  entire 
church.  This  is  an  everyday  occurrence.  The  mu¬ 
tual  distrust  existing  between  science  and  the 
church  is  fatal  to  her.  The  proper  attitude  for  her , 
however does  not  consist  in  always  accepting  the 
latest  theories ,  but  in  making  herself  altogether 
independent  of  scientific  and  philosophical  theo¬ 
ries.  What  I  offer ,  she  must  say ,  is  valid ,  whether 
Copernicus  or  Ptolemy ,  Darwin  or  Agassiz is 
right.  The  gospel  is  and  has  no  system  of  cosmolo¬ 
gy  and  biology ;  it  preaches  the  kingdom  of  God 
which  is  to  be  realized  in  the  heart  of  man T  (Paul¬ 
sen,  p.  160).  Thus  speaks  one  of  the  greatest 

[  206  ] 


The  Swing  of  the  Pendulum 

thinkers  among  the  devout  philosophers  of  our 
time. 

The  question  arises  from  a  contemplation  of  the 
current  situation  whether  those,  who  think  them¬ 
selves  doing  God’s  service  in  thus  striving  by  legal 
enactment  to  preserve  their  own  peculiar  views, 
may  not  be  putting  themselves  in  the  position  of 
Saul  of  Tarsus  before  his  conversion  on  the  way 
to  Damascus.  In  his  persecution  of  the  early 
church  Saul  sincerely  believed  that  he  had  the 
complete  and  hearty  approval  of  the  God  whom 
he  worshipped  with  all  the  strength  of  his  soul. 
Yet  when  the  scales  had  fallen  from  his  eyes,  he 
was  convinced  of  his  mistaken  point  of  view  and 
no  one  more  consistently  strove  to  advance  the 
kingdom  against  which  he  had  formerly  been  in 
opposition.  His  persecution  of  the  Christians  in 
his  earlier  manhood  was  due  to  his  false  concep¬ 
tion  of  Christianity  and  his  mistaken  theology. 
May  not  some  of  our  modem  theologians  find 
themselves  unwittingly  standing  in  Paul’s  old 
shoes?  All  that  Christian  theology  needs  is  the 
affirmation  of  the  origin  of  mankind  in  God,  ir¬ 
respective  of  the  process  by  which  he  was  pro¬ 
duced.  Enlightened  theologians,  such  as  Dr.  Wil¬ 
liam  Xewton  Clarke  (see  his  “Outline  of  Chris¬ 
tian  Theology,”  p.  224)  admit  this.  But  apparent¬ 
ly  the  church  as  a  whole  has  not  outgrown  the  old 
custom  of  offering  “definite  statements  concern¬ 
ing  the  time  and  manner  of  origin  of  the  human 
race,  and  to  consider  such  statements  indispensa¬ 
ble  to  its  positions  concerning  religion.  With  the 

[  207  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

same  view  of  its  duty  it  has  also  been  accustomed 
to  offer  definite  statements  concerning  the  time 
and  manner  of  the  origin  of  the  earth,  and  to  re¬ 
gard  its  own  independent  view  of  the  creation  of 
the  world  as  indispensable  to  its  religious  teach¬ 
ing”  ( loc .  cit .).  Perhaps  it  is  safe  to  say  that  a 
majority  of  the  Bible  students  today  have  read¬ 
justed  their  thinking  to  accord  with  the  discov¬ 
eries  of  astronomy  and  geology,  and  are  convinced 
that  theology  can  safely  leave  this  problem  to 
these  sciences,  since,  no  matter  what  the  process 
may  have  been,  it  must  have  been  God’s  method. 
“Accordingly,  Christian  theology  no  longer  main¬ 
tains,”  says  Clarke,  “that  the  earth  was  created  in 
six  days,  or  at  the  date  to  which  the  genealogies 
in  Genesis  lead  back,  but  gives  its  assent  to  the 
antiquity  of  the  planet  and  the  method  by  which 
worlds  generally  have  been  formed.”  He  main¬ 
tains  the  view  that  Christian  theology,  far  from 
suffering  any  loss,  is  actually  the  gainer  by  the 
change  in  view,  since  it  “relieves  theology  of  the 
consideration  of  a  question  that  is  not  essential  to 
its  own  sole  work.” 

Pursuing  the  matter  further,  Dr.  Clarke  finds 
also  that  “what  is  true  of  the  earth  is  true  of  the 
human  race.  .  .  .  The  time  has  come  when  theology 
should  remand  the  investigation  of  the  time  and 
manner  of  the  origin  of  man  to  the  science  of  an¬ 
thropology  with  its  kindred  sciences,  just  as  now 
it  remands  the  time  and  manner  of  origin  of  the 
earth  to  astronomy  and  geology,  and  should  ac¬ 
cept  and  use  their  discoveries  on  the  subject,  con- 

[  208  ] 


The  Swing  of  the  Pendulum 

tent  with  knowing  that  the  origin  of  mankind,  as 
of  all  else,  is  in  God.”  This  attitude  is  in  perfect 
harmony  with  the  principles  of  theology,  since  it 
proclaims  the  unity  of  God.  “If  God  is  one,  what 
He  has  taught  in  one  place  is  to  be  received  as 
loyally  as  what  He  has  taught  in  another.  The 
history  of  man,  like  the  history  of  other  denizens 
of  the  earth,  is  to  be  learned  through  investiga¬ 
tions  of  all  ascertainable  facts;  and  it  is  impossible 
that  God  should  have  intended  ever  to  contradict 
the  testimony  of  facts  by  any  utterance  in  words.” 
Hence,  Dr.  Clarke  reaches  a  conclusion  that  ap¬ 
parently  cannot  be  avoided,  namely,  that  this  is 
a  scientific  or  historical  question  which  is  to  be  in¬ 
vestigated  freely  bv  the  scientifico-historical 
method,  and  the  truth  discovered  in  this  wav 
“must  be  accepted  and  admitted  to  influence  when 
it  has  been  ascertained.”  He  willingly  and  freely 
admits,  what  seems  so  clear  to  one  who  examines 
the  evidence  without  prejudice  or  bias,  that  “there 
is  a  testimony  from  the  sciences  that  investigate 
the  origin  of  mankind,  so  definite  and  well-estab¬ 
lished  as  to  demand  recognition  in  the  field  of  the¬ 
ology,  as  well  as  in  the  intelligent  world  at  large.” 

Moreover,  this  situation  gives  reason  on  the  part 
of  theology  for  self-congratulation,  since  she  may 
now  lay  aside  an  inquiry  no  longer  found  to  be  es¬ 
sential  for  her  purposes.  Religion  cannot  be  made 
to  depend  upon  any  method  of  origin  of  man  more 
than  upon  that  of  the  world.  Man  has  “his  position 
and  standing  among  living  things,  and  no  theory 
of  the  manner  of  his  origin  can  make  him  other 

[  209  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 

than  he  is.  He  will  always  be  a  dependent  being, 
in  whose  life  religion  is  a  normal  and  necessary 
element.”  He  “is  a  part  of  the  one  great  system  in 
which  the  eternal  creative  power  and  purpose  have 
been  progressively  manifested.  Man  is  the  crown 
of  the  system,  ...  a  spirit  capable  of  commun¬ 
ing  with  his  holy  and  gracious  Creator.  In  the  en¬ 
tire  process  the  crowning  conception,  man ,  has 
been  always  in  view,  and  toward  him  the  great 
movement  has  steadilv  advanced.  .  .  .  Man  is  not 
lowered  to  an  inferior  level  occupied  by  nature, 
but  nature  is  raised  to  a  higher  grade  by  having 
man  for  its  supreme  outcome.  Man,  the  crown 
of  the  process,  is  no  mere  animal,  but  a  spiritual 
being  of  vast  powers,  high  destinies  and  incom¬ 
parable  needs,  whose  life  in  God  is  religion.” 

Dr.  Clarke  apparently  supports  the  view  set 

forth  in  a  preceding  chapter  of  this  book  (see  The 

Embryology  of  the  Mind )  that  there  is  no  more 

reason  for  postulating  a  special  creation  of  the 

soul  of  man  than  of  his  bodv — “not  because  there 

%/ 

is  no  need  of  God  for  the  producing  of  the  human 
soul ,  but  because  there  is  so  much  of  God  in  the 
perpetual  travail  of  creation  that  even  this  mar¬ 
vellous  addition  to  existence  is  sufficiently  ac¬ 
counted  for  already  by  His  presence  in  the  pro¬ 
cess.  Christianity  can  accept  and  employ  this  so¬ 
lution  of  the  question  of  origins  as  well  as  the  one 
that  was  formerly  received.  Theology  will  be  al¬ 
tered  in  some  respects  by  such  a  change,  but  not 
destroyed  nor  even  revolutionized.  .  .  .  Thereisno 
ground  for  foes  to  hope  or  friends  to  fear  that 

[210] 


The  Swing  of  the  Pendulum 

Christianity  must  retire  if  the  evolutionary  idea 
gains  entrance.  God  is  still  the  Creator  and  Lord , 
man  is  bound  to  Him  in  obligation ,  sin  is  in  the 
human  race ,  and  the  divine  grace  in  Christ  is  still 
the  hope  of  the  world”  (p.  2*26) . 


[211  ] 


SUGGESTED  READINGS 


The  following  list  of  books  is  by  no  means  exhaustive  but 
is  rather  a  suggestion  for  a  course  of  reading  for  those  who 
desire  to  pursue  the  subject  farther  than  could  be  done  in 
the  present  volume.  The  arrangement  is  that  which  will  prob¬ 
ably  be  found  most  logical^  beginning  with  those  of  a  gen¬ 
eral  introductory  nature  and  gradually  progressing  to  those 
more  extensive  or  more  technical  in  nature.  Many  of  these 
works  contain  bibliographies  which  will  lead  the  reader 
farther  and  farther  into  this  field. 

1.  Introduction  to  Science , 

J.  Arthr  Thomson. 

Henry  Holt  and  Co. 

2.  The  Theory  of  Evolution, 

W.  B.  Scott. 

The  Macmillan  Co. 

3.  Evolution, 

Geddes  and  Thomson. 

Henry  Holt  and  Co. 

4.  Headings  in  Evolution,  Genetics  and  Eugenics, 

H.  H.  Newman. 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press. 

5.  The  Doctrine  of  Evolution, 

H.  E.  Crampton. 

Columbia  University  Press. 

6.  Darwin  and  After  Darwin, 

G.  J.  Romanes. 

The  Open  Court  Publishing  Co. 

7.  Organic  Evolution, 

R.  S.  Lull. 

The  Macmillan  Co. 

8.  Darwinism  To-Day, 

V.  L.  Kellogg. 

Henry  Holt  and  Co. 

[  213  ] 


Evolution  and  Christian  Faith 


9.  The  Origin  of  Species, 

Charles  Darwin. 

D.  Appleton  and  Co. 

10.  The  Descent  of  Man, 

Charles  Darwin. 

D.  Appleton  and  Co. 

1 1.  The  Direction  of  Human  Evolution, 

E.  G.  Conklin. 

Charles  Scribner’s  Sons. 

12.  Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age, 

H.  F.  Osborn. 

Charles  Scribner’s  Sons. 

13.  The  Interpretation  of  Nature, 

C.  L.  Morgan. 

The  Macmillan  Co. 

14.  The  Foundations  of  Zoology, 

W.  K.  Brooks. 

The  Macmillan  Co. 

15.  Why  the  Mind  Has  a  Body, 

C.  A.  Strong. 

The  Macmillan  Co. 

16.  The  Science  of  Human  Behavior, 

M.  Parmalee. 

The  Macmillan  Co. 

17.  Introduction  to  Philosophy , 

Friedrich  Paulsen;  translated  by  Frank  Thilly. 
Henry  Holt  and  Co. 

18.  An  Outline  of  Christian  Theology , 

William  Newton  Clark. 

Charles  Scribner’s  Sons. 


[  214  ] 


Date  Due 

An  i  1  *58 

MY  2  "•& 

stt*r2& 

i* 

- . . 

^spip^ 

* 

- 

